text:
What if there is no rebirth but karma is not eradicated by meditation and the path?
What if there is no rebirth but karma is not eradicated by the path?
I think that would mean that the agent experiences the results of their actions even without rebirth. Am I right? At least if the buddha self is not just impermanent.

What if there's a flower bud in a tree but sunshine and other requirements need it to be pollinated are not fully covered/eradicated. Will it bear a fruit without blooming? -- Think and you'll find the answer for your question.

There is no 'rebirth' (aka 'reincarnation') but kamma (the idea of 'agent' doing & reaping) is eradicated by the path. This means if the path is not realised, 'the agent' experiences the results of their actions even if there is no rebirth (reincarnation).
However, 'an agent' experiencing the results of their actions is what 'rebirth' really means. 'Rebirth' in reality is the re-arising of the idea of 'the agent' or 'self'.
'Rebirth' does not mean 'reincarnation' into another life. 'Rebirth' means the idea, obsession and neurosis of 'self' keeps getting born; as follows:

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who
  has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the
  self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is
  the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence
  of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person,
  touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving
  arises. That fabrication is born of that.
SN 22.81

In the teachings in the Pali suttas, 'rebirth' always includes the delusion of 'an agent' or 'a being', as follows:

I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human —
  beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are
  inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in
  accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad
  conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong
  views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with
  the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane
  of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But
  these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, &
  mind, who did not revile noble ones, who held right views and
  undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the
  break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good
  destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine
  eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away &
  re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior,
  beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their
  kamma.
MN 4

As long as the mind continues to construct the idea of 'self', 'agent', 'person' or 'being', rebirth will continue. This is samsara. Samsara is circling around in self-views, as follows:

"Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running
  around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
  an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble
  ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no
  regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
  form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
"He assumes feeling to be the self...
"He assumes perception to be the self...
"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing
  consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness.
"He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that
  very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications...
  that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose
  from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose
  from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death;
  from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not
  set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
SN 22.99

"A being" is merely a view or idea, as explained below:

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This
  is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So,
  when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls
  away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases.
SN 5.10

Hi DD! Is it fair to equate rebirth to reincarnation? Do you think when people use the term rebirth, they are talking about reincarnation? Or is there a difference between those two concepts? Kind regards!

Hi Brian. I think 'rebirth" in the suttas later became "reincarnation" in Buddhism. For example, the later Jataka Tales are definitely about reincarnation. But originally, the "rebirth" teachings are basically about results of kamma. The language & context of the older sutta teachings can be interpreted in two ways. But literal reincarnation can only be interpreted in one way. There are a small handful of literal reincarnation suttas. Since they can only be interpreted in one way, for me, the Buddha never spoke them. Regards

Thanks for that quick response. This new answer of yours seems more nuanced than when you wrote "rebirth (aka 'reincarnation')", which seems to imply that both are virtually the same. I may be reading and interpreting things wrongly, but I think most people on this forum and in DW use the word 'rebirth' as the process of continuation of some features of a "past chain of events" (of a being), which is definitely not the same as a belief in soul or a permanent self (which I understand as "reincarnation"). Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores - I share your view that rebirth is not reincarnation. It seems an important point.

not sure about the quotes you use, but this seems like a fair description of theravada buddhism

Well if there is no rebirth, then it is good news for people who want to stop dukkha: it is only death, the problem is solved without requiring any effort, because humans, devas animals die, whether they like and want it or not.
THe problem is that death of a puthujjana or devas or animals is not the way to stop dukkha, so those people have to do something else than dying, in order to stop dukkha.

What the matter for a Buddhist is to eliminate Dukkha here and now. Not after death.
So whether there is rebirth or not is secondary.


text:
Why would existence remove my knowledge after reicarnation?
Avidyā and moha which can be translated as confusion or ignorance are sources of suffering. The western term for the study of reality and knowledge is called "philosophy" which an be translated from the Greek as "the love of wisdom".
Rāga is also a term for attachment which is another source of suffering that is to say Buddhism tells you not to attach yourself to material or mental objects (including Buddhism) otherwise you will suffer and won't attain enlightenment.
If knowledge gives you a deeper understanding of reality and existence and makes you understand other beings and their need to escape suffering and knowledge makes you attain compassion, why would nature be so cruel to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation after reincarnation to make you step on the same stones again? Christian Gnostics believed that it's because this world is controlled by Satan and only holy knowledge can give you salvation. Is karma (which is a religious belief) the only answer Buddhism has to this matter?

I wonder if the analogy between Christianity and Buddhism is misleading here. Christianity claims to answer "why" questions such as why there is death and why there will be a resurrection, and if you don't believe the answers, you aren't considered orthodox. Does Buddhism even claim to explain why death and reincarnation exist?

@BenCrowell I think you are forgetting that buddhism is not just a philosophy but also a religion. Double check reincarnation, samsara, bardos, in buddhism.

What I'm suggesting is that you may be overgeneralizing what "religion" means based on the example of Christianity. There is secular Buddhism, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism . I certainly know Buddhists who don't believe in reincarnation. There are all kinds of common beliefs among Buddhists that are optional or provisional or culture-specific, e.g., the cosmology of Tibetan Buddhism. IIRC the Dalai Lama has made various statements like, "If science someday disproves X, then we should discard X," where X is a common Buddhist belief.

This question is based on this one https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5060/the-reptilian-conspiracy-theory-vs-buddhism not suitable for this channel.

why would nature be so cruel
"Cruel" sounds like dukkha -- as if nature were ill-willed and unkind, and we were averse to that.
So I guess that's among the many kinds of view or perception that we should overcome (in order to do away with dukkha), craving things to be other than they are -- though maybe also acknowledge whatever truth there is in it to become dispassionate about whatever is impermanent.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation
I suppose you're not supposed to see them as "your" memories and "your" wisdom.
They are memories, perhaps they are wisdom, but they are, "not mine, not me, not my self".
To some extent wisdom isn't removed -- from the world -- by death, in that the Dhamma continues to exist. I think that's similar to the view that there's a dharmakaya.

Buddhism most likely comes form Samkhya. In this philosophy material world or prakrti server purusa (spirit) In some Buddhist temple I was said that existence wants you to blossom in the same way a lotus flower blossoms. But I don't think  external factors help much for that goal. As far as I know dukha is also produced by Karmic reasons and this seems to be only real official explanation of the religion/philosophy

I don't understand most of the comment so I'll ignore it. Yes dukkha is important, some suttas end with the Buddha's saying, "Both formerly and now, I teach dukkha and its cessation" as if that's the essential summary. And yes some people or schools try the doctrine as a way to live in the world, with or without becoming a monk.

I think you wrongly assume that meditation and being able to close doors of perception even the idea of the ego is the only goal and only way to achieve enlightenment as opposed to knowledge, ethics or purification of karma doing good actions as explained in the eight-fold path. Buddhism as in Samkhya you are not ultimately responsible for your enlightenment since you don't know your remaining karma and it's not up only to your free-will.

I think you wrongly assume I don't think I assume that all, so I don't know where that comment came from but perhaps you're "projecting" and don't have a good/accurate model (i.e. Theory of mind).

maybe my English is not good enough, but I think your question is possibly based on a misconception. "Rebirth" – not re-incarnation as Brian Diaz Flores clarified – ist not a kind of "reset", so that you start as a blank paper again so that

you step on the same stones again?

Which would make Buddhism indeed very sadistic. Due to applying buddhist teachings in your life you will lay good foundations in your mind, which will bear fruits in next life. In fact this is the aim of all Hinayana-Teachings: Personal liberation due to ethical discipline.
It's not like having a "memory" as a mental factor. (Remembering past learnings). It's more like a healthy attitude you are strengthen life after life due to collect "merit". So some stones will vanish. (Hopefully)

Are you saying that somebody who was a Lama in a previous life can remember the 4 noble truths and the sources of suffering after rebirth or perhaps that rebirth will provide you with a different existence who gives that knowledge to you from birth? where are those steps or bardos defined in Buddhism? I have not found anything similar to that yet.

@PbxMan I think they're maybe meant to be an apt student, possibly born into a suitable environment. For example when the Dalai Lama is chosen as an infant, he is then trained, and studies e.g. from age 6 until he graduated age 23.

Nature is not a personal entity, as far as we know.
There are laws of nature, and those laws function independently of any moral or axiological (judgements of value) consideration. Reality is what it is, and it does not care about your evaluation of it. It makes no sense to judge it as "fair" or "unfair", mainly because those are subjective concepts.
Kamma is just one of those laws: any action has its consequences -in the mind and in the external world-, and the most important factor, especially when talking about suffering (and its perpetuation and cessation), is intention.
(By the way, 'kamma' just means "action", and it is not necessarily a religious or superstitious concept; it depends on your definition and understanding of it).
Think about this situation: one you were a child, you took a lot of decisions and made a lot of choices, and it is likely that most of those choices were made without major consideration or analysis of the potential consequences. And as a product of those decisions, you experimented some of those unreflected consequences, some of them probably until this very day.
Would you say that it is unfair that you "suffer" the consequences of unreflective deeds made by a child years ago, considering that you are not that child anymore?
Consequences, and laws of nature in general, all happen whether you like it or not, and the wisest thing you can do it to understand and accept those unavoidable laws, and learn how to act according to their influence.
Also bear in mind that "rebirth" (and not "reincarnation", because since there is no permanent self/soul, this latter concept is not part of most buddhist doctrines) is a controvertial topic, whether some buddhist like to accept it or not. So not everyone would agree with the idea of something (consciousness, memories, tendencies, etc.) continuing after biological/clinical death.
Kind regards!

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

why would nature be so cruel to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation after reincarnation to make you step on the same stones again?

One of the Noble truths is acknowledging that pain or suffering exists rather than denying it so perhaps nature or reality is naturally cruel.
But it's not really reincarnation rather rebirth or re-existence in one of the five realms (hell, the animal realm, realm of ghosts, humans, devas).
Birth as a human is extremely rare the majority of humans most likely came from hellish worlds, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts prior to this human existence (as implied in the Pansu suttas SN 56.102-113) and don't naturally automatically remember past existences it's only gained through developing one of the six higher knowledges (pubbe-nivāsanussati).

Christian Gnostics believed that it's because this world is controlled
  by Satan and only holy knowledge can give you salvation. Is karma
  (which is a religious belief) the only answer Buddhism has to this
  matter?

The concept of Satan might have originated in Buddhism as Mara the "Evil One" is a central figure in early Buddhism and pre-Buddhists religions seem to not have any Satan figure only post-Buddhist religions like Christianity and Islam which were obviously influenced by Buddhism since Ashoka sent Buddhist missionaries all around the world.
Kamma is one explanation but it's also explained in the suttas the nature of things is impermanent and subject to change.

I marked this post down. It is full of non-sense. SN 56.47 defines what "human birth" is. It is not something biological. The "human birth", per SN 56.47, is living a morally righteous life; not devouring or exploiting others. Best to read SN 56.47 rather than post non-sense about most humans reincarnated from hell. The suttas do not say this it all. The suttas (eg AN 6.39) say the human state is born from non-greed, non-hatred & non-delusion.

The Pansu Suttas say that most humans after death go to hell, the animal realm, or realm of ghosts implying that most new humans came from hellish worlds, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts...you are atheist pretending to be Buddhist modifying it to fit into your own personal views and biases clinging attached to views so incapable of seeing the truth, why not be Christian it's the nearly same as atheist you can enjoy your stay in hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts after death

why would nature be so cruel to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation after reincarnation to make you step on the same stones
  again?

There is no evidence for "reincarnation". Your question is unrelated to "reality". What you have called "ignorance" (of the Four Noble Truths) and "lust" ("raga") are related to reproductive & survival instincts. This things exists because nature creates 'raga"; which is probably related to the energy of chemical reactions & heat that propel physical creation.
The fact that there is no evidence of wisdom passing from life to life is evidence against reincarnation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism) does Buddhism allow you to make your own interpretation of it as you see fit?? If so it's way better than I thought. Ref. Needed please

Wikipedia does not understand Buddhism. the Buddha never taught reincarnation. this was added in after the Buddha passed away. When the Buddha referred to birth & death, he was referring to the ideas that "I am born" and "I will die" created by the deluded egoistic mind with self. "Birth" and "death" are self-views. This is what is literally explained in the scriptures. Regards

This is all wrong...part of the Noble Eightfold Path is Right View which includes the idea of rebirth it's part of very early Buddhism....if you don't believe so then why be Buddhist why not be atheist?

Sorry but the Noble Eightfold Path does not include the view of rebirth. You appear to have wrong understanding. In your comment, you appeared to slander both the Dhamma and myself. This is your karma.

Right View is part of the Eightfold Path and is defined as "‘There is what is given, sacrificed, and offered; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings spontaneously reborn; there are in the world ascetics and brahmins of right conduct and right practice who, having realized this world and the other world for themselves by direct knowledge, make them known to others.’" (AN 10.211 repeated elsewhere)
If after death it's just like sleeping in then why pursue enlightenment?

Sorry but "There is what is given... etc" does not form part of the NOBLE eightfold path. try reading the sutta (MN 117) with a clear mind. As I posted, your slandering of the the Dhamma and myself is your personal kamma, from which there will be results.

You are all wrong Right View is part of the Eightfold Path the reason why you disagree is because you probably never had experiences and are trying to pervert the true teachings into false atheistic views. It should be pretty easy to scientifically prove rebirth but looks like the world might be empty of arahant teachers. MN 117 is talking about Right View siding with merits but not saying it's false. Also where did you get the ridiculous that idea that it was added in after? Lol, the historical evidence clearly shows that most pre-Buddhist religions didn't have any afterlife concept

MN 117 right view with defilement, attachment & merit is NOT NOBLE. Regards

But you are trying to say that it's false more similar to atheistic views it's still stated as many times as a Wrong View to oppose the merit Right View...the Noble truth Right View is about stress leading towards arahantship but both are Right Views...also past existences are mentioned in 2 out of the 6 six higher knowledges either way I don't really want to debate about this anymore until I achieve arahantship and the six higher knowledges or come close since the world is full of pollutants, the unbelieving, wicked...even if you disbelieve then I hope you still try to generate merit

Noble Disciples do not generate merit. LOL

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Information requested on Buddhist monks self-immolation mental technique
Thích Quảng Đức was a monk who immolated himself to protest against the repression by the Vietnamese government in 1963. It was filmed how he adopted the full-lotus posture an fire was set on him. The picture which was awarded the Pulitzer was known worldwide.
In that video he does not show any signs of pain at all and he doesn't seem to be under the effect of any drug. It is said this is some sort of deep meditation or self-hypnosis technique nevertheless Hypnosurgery lacks of scientific evidence.
Plenty of other monks even younger have committed self-immolation  in Tibet to protest against the Chinese occupation. A lack of fiscal pain is a common trait. Is there more information on how this technique is done, it's difficulties and knowing that some Buddhist organizations are collaborating with modern neuro-science is there a scientific explanation for this and its possibilities or medical potential to treat chronic pain diseases?
Video here watcher discretion advised
Picture here watcher discretion advised

This may be a duplicate of this question: Experiencing physical pain

The same question asked on Psychology & Neurosciences SE: How do certain individuals, like Quang Duc, develop the ability to remain calm when enduring significant nociceptive pain?

From the question I assume you are new to Buddhism so will answer accordingly.
There is no scientific explanation for feeling pain let alone not feeling it. However, there are explanations. Indeed, the whole of Buddhist doctrine might be seen as an explanation of how to transcend suffering. You would need to study the 'Four Noble Truths'.
A very famous case is the horrific crucifixion and torture of the Sufi sage Al Hallaj. It seemed not to bother him and he expresses disappointment when one of his students sheds tears for him, for it gives away his lack of understanding that there is nobody there to suffer.
The explanation would be the ability of human beings to discover that the self that suffers is not real and to stand apart from their thoughts, feelings, sensations and emotions. We can all do this to some extent and find ourselves forced to do it situations of great pain. Many people come to Buddhist practice and that of other traditions by way of lengthy painful experiences. They discover that the pain may be viewed objectively without any sense of ownership such that they can say 'There is pain', and not 'I am in pain'.
A full explanation would require delving into the nature of consciousness and personhood and this would take us beyond 'scientific consciousness studies' and academic philosophy, while an understanding of the explanation would require a lot of practice and personal research.
This ability to transcend suffering is in the nature of consciousness. The comment by Aurobindo below indicates that it is a recognition that only our 'surface being' suffers, and this allows practitioners to display great feats of suffering. But it cannot be a theory. It has to be a reality for us or it is not the case for us. Thus practice is required for such feats, not book-learning.
"One might almost say that our surface being is only the deeper eternal self in us throwing itself out as the adventurer in Time, a gambler and speculator in infinite possibilities, limiting itself to the succession of moments so that it may have all the surprise and delight of the adventure, keeping back its self-knowledge and complete self-being so that it may win again what it seems to have lost, reconquering all itself through the chequered joy and pain of an aeonic passion and seeking and adventure." (Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine)
Thus to overcome suffering would mean realising that our surface being is a construction, much as Dennett describes it, and not our true being. For a truly realised being there would be no suffering and no person to suffer, and this is the meaning of the Four Noble Truths.
On a personal note, aged seventeen I suffered a lot of intense pain for a period due to an operation that went wrong. I had no choice but to distance myself from it and found that this is possible. It was only four decades later that I discovered Buddhism and found an explanation. There is more to human being (or perhaps less) than the natural sciences are able to discover. Hence the placebo effect may be effective in reducing pain. For a full reduction the Buddha's medicine would have to be ingested. A truly skilled monk may self-immolate without the slightest worry about pain and death. They are past all that nonsense.
Whether we believe this is not important since believing it isn't going to help. But even if we know nothing about Buddhist teachings the next time we're in great pain it may be a good chance to perform some experiments. In practice it is said that we discover not simply that we do not suffer but that there is nobody to suffer. Regrettably this knowledge is not easily won, but even a little familiarity with the skills required will help us when we are in pain.
The natural science may be able to verify that the behaviour of some people indicates an ability to transcend pain but is not able to study consciousness so cannot provide an explanation. The science of Yoga, however, as described by Patanjali, or Buddhist practice allows us to know the explanation and make it our reality.
Aurobindo (ibid) also says this.
"In our ordinary life this truth is hidden from us or only dimly glimpsed at times or imperfectly held and conceived. But if we learn to live within, we infallibly awaken to this presence within us which is our more real self, a presence profound, calm, joyous and puissant of which the world is not the master - a presence which, if it is not the Lord Himself, is the radiation of the Lord within. We are aware of it within supporting and helping the apparent and superficial self and smiling at its pleasures and pains as at the error and passion of a little child."
You may find some interesting youtube videos on this topic but I don't know of any on this exact topic. Any decent book on meditation ought to cover the main points and explain the abilities of these self-immolating monks.
Here are some suttas about giving up pleasure and pain.

Good answer. Also If a person has permanent disidentification from the ego, then any negative mental formations or physical pain cannot effect their deep peace of mind and contentment.

Interesting observations but it seems that your understanding requires faith. Hypnosis also requires conviction from the subject that submits to this mental state. Your comment denotes a need to believe in the whole Buddhist doctrine without doing too much critical thinking and ignores those who want to go all the way in the search for truth. Thanks for the effort but it's not valid for me.

@Murathan1 -Amazing isn't it?. I'm still getting over the shock of discovering these facts and am lifetimes away from being able to happily self-immolate. Buddhism is exciting! The adventure to end all adventures.

@PbxMan - It has nothing whatsoever to do with belief. Believing in Buddhist doctrine is not useful unless it is motivational. It won't help when we are in pain. From your comment I conclude that my answer is poor and needs more work. In truth it is not possible to believe in Buddhist doctrine until one understands it properly, and by then faith and belief are not necessary.  . . . .

@PeterJ You're right. Buddhism is really exciting and life changing. There is always new things to learn and gain from it untill the complete unification with the Ultimate Reality

@PbxMan -  People can have deep insights about these things by "experience". Meditation is a great science that is mostly ignored in our world and there are lots of things to learn and gain from it.

@Murathan1 I agree on the meditation part. Remember that meditation is found in practically all major religions and yogis are indeed masters at meditation too. The Sidharta Gautama used all information available on his time and insight  an shared what he found out in his own school  perhaps that's what the real teaching of the Buddha is about. I'm trying not to attach myself to Maya and Buddhism can be part of that illusion too.

@PbxMan - I don't understand your first comment here but would agree with your approach. I learnt much about Christianity (my birth religion) from Buddhism (more than from my education), much about Buddhism from Taoism, much about advaita from Sufism, and much about all of them from the Upanishads. I'd agree that one may become over-attached to Buddhism if one sees it as an exclusive doctrine. It is, however, a self-sufficient doctrine and so from a practical angle I would see no harm in sticking to it if we're not interested in other.traditions.

@PeterJ attachment is a source of suffering good luck with that. My religion is the search for truth. I'm asking for something more "scientific" here.

@PbxMan - I hope we're all searching for truth. But there can be no scientific explanation for this phenomenon.for the reasons I give. Or not unless we accept that Yoga is a science,.

@PeterJ there is no scientific explanation? how come? Has this even been researched? Do you know any opinion for any remarkable neuroscientist? Do you want to science to exploit this feature or you want your unicorn to remain intact?

@PbxMan If you want a "scientific" answer do you think your question might be on-topic on another site, e.g. Psychology & Neuroscience?

@ChrisW I want to know what the buddhists monks have to say and what the scientists have to say. eg. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6796675-buddha-s-brain

@PbxMan - Talk of unicorns does not indicate a serious intent to understand the topic.  .

The brain activity has many waves, one of them is gamma-wave. One hypothesis is that with gamma-wave you can dissociate with your senses, thus feeling numb on the pain. It seems that activating the gamma wave on-demand is the key to withstand the pain. It also seems that meditation can help doing that.
Note that there is currently no consensus on this. More evidence is needed to support this.
This is taken from the article The Brain of the Buddha (Koch, American Scientific, 2013). Here is an excerpt from it:

Gamma activity in these monks is the largest seen in nonpathological conditions and 30 times greater than in the novices. The more years the monks had been practicing meditation, the stronger  the  (normalized)  power in the gamma band.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What sort of infinite regress to birth is Nagarjuna's MMK arguing for?
I start with some quotes, to show how I got to two specific questions about Buddhism, then a question that is more philosophical and general.
Batchelor's translation of Nagajuna's MMK:

I bow down to the most sublime of speakers, the completely awakened
  one who taught contingency (no cessation, no birth, no
  annihilation, no permanence, no coming, no going, no difference, no
  identity) to ease fixations.

Looking at the section on birth, 7.4 (I'm more or less choosing interesting parts at random to get to my particular point, below)

The birth of birth gives birth to the root birth alone.  The root
  birth also is that which gives birth to the birth of birth

That seems like an infinite regress of births, suggesting birth is caused (7.19)

If another [thing] that has been born gives birth [to it], this would
  be endless.  If it is born without [another] which has been born [OR
  if it is born without being born], everything would be born like that
  [i.e. causelessly].

which may be why he concludes (7.34)

Like a dream, like a magician’s illusion, like a city of gandharvas,
  likewise birth and likewise remaining, likewise perishing are taught.

perhaps via support from 1.3

The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on.  If an own thing does not exist, an other thing does not exist.

birth is not an other thing, its essence is not in others, and in conjunction with the argument in 1.5

Since something is born in dependence upon them, then they are known as “conditions”. As long as it is not born, why are they not
  non-conditions?

we're back to birth being an infinite regress, but the apparent way out, it being caused, makes no difference, because cause too is a birth: birth is no birth.
My questions:
We can pile up adjectives as long as we want. The red of the rose is a red that is red, and so on. Whereas actions, verbs, take up time, and suggest an infinite number of tasks, births, need to occur for one to.

Is there, in Nagarjua's Sanskrit (different grammars teach different rules), an adjective for the past tense of born?
Even if we do use an adjective for birth does this offer any problems? Does the meaning of "born" always involve an incomplete infinite regress of actions, or can that be avoided if it itself is not an action?

I suspect that we can get out of the infinite regress only through the claim that the born thing exists to have such and such aspects. Am I right?

Does my presentation of the idea that born things must exist because they are caused, unlike nirvana, makes sense to yogacarin theories of trisvabhava?

maybe nonsense... good fun though!

Regarding your last sentence, I think your difficulty may arise from assuming things that are born exist, while for Nagarjuna nothing would really exist and nothing would really be born. Thus 'Like a dream, like a magician’s illusion, like a city of gandharvas' is birth and remaining taught. That is, these things are discussed as if they exist, (conventional analysis) but with the metaphysical proviso that they don't (ultimate analysis).  .

not sure that the ultimate analysis needs to be read as a mere negation of conventional existence, i don't think many schools claimed that anyway @PeterJ

Mahayana is the view that nothing really exists or ever really happens. I'd agree that this is not merely a negation of conventional existence, since there would be a sense (obviously) that existence exists. It is, rather, the view that metaphysically or 'by reduction' (and in experience/non-experience) the conventional world is empty and reduces to Unity lying 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories' and the world of manifestations. This is a complete solution for metaphysics. Whether it is the case is another matter, many would say not, but logic is on its side.

i don't think that's really the case... mahayanists tend to subscribe to a middle way between nihilism (nothing exists) and Being @PeterJ

Quite so. This is why the claim is 'nothing really exists', where the 'really' denotes an avoidance of Nihilism.

i suppose that is fair @PeterJ the ultimate, when thought of different to the conventional, is usually a negation of something

In my understanding, everything Nagarjuna talks about endlessly revolves around one theme - that is of imputation and reification of abstractions, which leads to confusion of the phenomenological with the ontological, which leads to conflicts, and suffering. As was customary in the ancient times he goes over endless examples of the same kind of argument over and over again, to make sure the reader is left with no doubts about the points made.
The initial verse introduces the subject of liberation from reification (paraphrasing Garfield's translation):

I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha,
  the best of teachers, who taught that everything is dependently arisen --
  not dying, not born, not subject to annihilation nor permanence,
  not coming, not going, with no delineation, no [fixed] identity; -- to liberate from reification.

With arising/birth, just like with every other topic, Nagarjuna uses 'reductio-ad-absurdum' to show that discrete things are reified abstractions we impute onto reality, confusing them with reality itself.
Specifically, speaking about arising/birth, he tries to show that the notion of birth as a moment when something is born is incohesive under close scrutiny. He says, if something arises at point T1, then what is the moment T0 when this arising itself begins (arises). If we look at any such point, we see an infinite regress - not into the past, but into splitting each moment of arising into its "beginning" and the rest of the moment.
Equally, when we look at the moment when something has fully arisen... This notion of "having arisen" is absurd as well. This is where he gives that simile of the lamp, saying that where lamp with its light has fully arisen there is no darkness (absence of light), therefore arising of the lamp could not have possibly caused illumination of the darkness, because by the time lamp with its light fully exists, darkness has gone. This is a similar argument to the "initial moment of arising" argument, except now we're scrutinizing the final moment. As we look closer we see that there is no concrete point in time when something is "fully arisen".
All of this is meant to illustrate that the notion of arising, and therefore the notion of entity, is an abstraction, and that we should stop reifying things as solid and having clear boundaries, because in reality they do not.
In Yogacara's theory of three-fold-svabhava, reality can be analyzed from a perspective of how it appears to a mind of naive reification (i.e. that entities are real), from an analytical perspective of dependent-origination (which explains how entities gradually become more solid as a result of development of the mind of reification), and from an enlightened perspective of Buddha, who look at all this stuff with full understanding of how it works and therefore clearly sees the true "quantum" reality behind both the confused perspective as well as the analytical dependent-origination perspective.
P.S. to those wondering how all this relates to Noble Path and liberation from suffering: in Mahayana, reification of entities as something real and solid is considered the root cause of attachment, therefore of suffering. In Mahayana's interpretation, the ignorance Buddha spoke about, is exactly this naive ignorant reification, not understanding that entities are imputations and therefore grasping onto the phantoms. This in turn leads both to objective conflict because of clashing points of view, and to subjective suffering when things turn out to be different from the way we imagined.


text:
Buddhism on We are all one
As explained here Buddhism does no belong into pantheism because God can be interpreted no as oneness but a creation of the mind as the fourth aggregate explains (eg. "an invisible man who lives in the sky who is separated from you etc") that implies something separated from you.  Nevertheless the third mark of existence "Anatta" tells you that there is no self that is to say the idea of you (ego) is illusory.
Is is right from a Buddhistic point of view to say that you and me are the same because there is only one consciousness playing different minds(egos, personalities, psychologies, etc) and bodies of all sentient creatures at the same time. Eg. "the same driver driving all the cars at the same time in present, past and future"

I'd say so. If we recognise Nagarjuna then he logically proves it. This unity would be our natural and intuitive source of empathy and compassion according to Schopenhauer, and how can God watch every sparrow that falls unless he is that sparrow? The knowledge claims of mysticism and the Perennial philosophy depend on a doctrine of Unity for their plausibility and it is the only solution for metaphysics that works. All distinctions and divisions would be creations of mind. But not all Buddhists agree about anything, so there will be some who would not endorse this view.  .

OP: Is it right from a Buddhist point of view to say that you and me are the same because there is only one consciousness playing
  different minds (egos, personalities, psychologies, etc) and bodies of
  all sentient creatures at the same time. Eg. "the same driver driving
  all the cars at the same time in present, past and future"

No. That's a classic teaching of Hinduism.
According to the Hindu text Shvetashvatara Upanishad:

God, who is one only, is hidden in all beings.
  He is all-pervading, and is the inner self of all creatures.
  He presides over all actions, and all beings reside in Him.
  He is the witness, and He is the Pure Consciousness

According to the Hindu text Bhagavad Gita 13.14:

Everywhere are His hands and legs, His eyes and faces, and He hears
  everything. In this way the Supersoul exists.

What did the Buddha teach?
(from the Theravada perspective)
From MN 38:

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in
  dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood
  is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence
  on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that
  burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a
  fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a
  cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified
  simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is
  classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness
  is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which
  it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms
  is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises
  in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as
  ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose
  & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness
  that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply
  as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on
  the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as
  body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
  intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

Think about it. How can the silent witness witness anything except through one of these media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind? There was never a time, when there was consciousness being aware of something except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind. There is therefore no independent consciousness.
Consciousness is dependent on and conditioned upon these six media. It does not exist independently connecting all beings. The consciousness in every being may be of a similar type, but it's not the same consciousness.
For example, I can say that every candle has a similar flame, but it's not the exact same flame that appears on every candle. Each flame is different.
From Sabba Sutta (also see this question):

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
  speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would
  say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on
  what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable
  to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it
  lies beyond range.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

The vinnana of the teaching of the Buddha is different from that of the Consciousness of the Hinduism.

@ruben2020 do the Buddha mention anywhere how does this Consciousness arise? I mean how does it come into being.

No, that's not the theravāda point of view. That's a fallacy or wrong view called, "He assumes consciousness to be the self", in twenty self-indentification-views.
Each arising aggregate is different from the other aggregates, different from e.g. other people's aggregates, past aggregates, far aggregates.
They all are the aggregates, but no one is the same.
Although there is a conditional relation which is called "Decisive Support" i.e. upanissaya (or in this clip that's translated as "Powerful Dependence"), so that past consciousness is a Decisive Support condition of present consciousness, but that is not the same as saying that the past consciousness "is" the present consciousness (i.e. the consciousness which it affects in the present).
Preceding states are related to subsequent states by the "Decisive Support" condition.
The aggregate is the Conditional Relation and Dependent Origination. Every relation has more than one cause and more than one effect, so don't find "the one" in Buddhism because it's self view.

Would it be correct the reword the paragraph as, "Although there is a conditional relation which is called "Decisive Support" i.e. upanissaya, the Decisive Support conditions past consciousness, but that is still not the consciousness which it affects in the present"? That rewording would be more grammatical and therefore easier for me to understand, but I'm not sure whether that is what you meant to write (e.g. because I don't know what upanissaya means or how it's relevant).

This clip has an english subtitle. Please, help me to modify it. Thank you. Upanissaya paccaya is the vanished aggregates maybe a long time ago but it still is able to cause the present effect to arise. It's like a habit because the present effected aggregates is able to look similar to its causes, upanissaya paccaya, but the upanissaya paccaya has vanished a long time ago, while its effect is arising, so they are not the same one.

From Mahayana perspective:
"We are all one" is a simplified step in the right direction - but ultimately is not true. It can be used as a stepping stone from the mainstream primitive materialism, but must be transcended eventually.
In Mahayana we recognize that things are interconnected and interrelated. In this sense, yes, every thing (implicitly) has (hidden relationships with) all other things in it, including sentient beings, so in this sense "we" (sentient beings) are "one" (interconnected).
This non-dual perspective is a lot more virtuous than the usual worldly ethics based on the materialistic assumptions like "Winner takes all", "Man vs nature" etc. It leads to more harmonious relationships through greater awareness of the big picture. It reduces the risk of Tragedy of the commons.
However, and my Zen Master was exceedingly clear about it, even this perspective must be transcended ("get over it!") on the way to complete Enlightenment.
This is because, at the end of the day, self-identifying with "All" is still a prison. It's a very tightly controlled prison too - where everything works strictly in accordance with the Law. As you yourself said "same driver driving all the cars at the same time in present, past and future".
Instead, what Buddhism proposes (and Mahayana is very vocal about it) is freedom of perspective, or freedom from all fixed positions. This means getting rid of attachment to concepts like "I am a sentient being" or "We are sentient beings" or "We are this Universe" etc. and even transcending the concepts like "Mind", "Matter" and "Universe".
At the end, there is understanding of how things work, without putting it into any dualistic boxes and without thinking that "You" are that or any part of that.
As my Zen Master used to say:

From the perspective of All, "God bless you" - but from the perspective of Enlightenment: you bless God.

Meaning, when you're out of the cosmic prison, you're free to choose your perspective, you "got over" the non-dualism, you got over "you", and even got over "Enlightenment" and "Nirvana". As the Buddha character says in my novel:

There is an infinite number of ways to see reality, each valid from its own side, each incompatible with the others, but each having its own internally consistent logic. Every one of these different views leads to corresponding decisions, corresponding actions, and corresponding results. You must decide for yourself what to believe in and how to see the world.  Do not let anyone force their judgements on you, however rational and experience-based they might seem. Do not assume anything to be obvious and not requiring critical consideration - even your own thoughts! This is because, having assumed a thought, you pick your path and not only yours.
You can choose to think thoughts that would bring suffering to both yourself and to others. Or, you can choose to look at things in a way that brings peace. However, there is no single point of view that would fit to all situations in life. Point of view is like a tool - there's right tool for each job.
Remember: by picking your point of view, you change your future. Not just your own, the future of the entire world depends on your choice of perspective. Choose your reality well!

I think the last paragraph isn't quite right, because it implies:

I exist and you exist
We're the same because we are consciousness and there is one consciousness
There are several cars, each car has a driver, every car has the same driver, the same driver persists across past, present, and future

I think Buddhism has a different emphasis, e.g. that, "consciousness is dependently originated, impermanent, and non-self" -- also, speaking of cars, that there is "no chariot" and only "an assemblage conventionally called a chariot".
I think I've seen the Dalai Lama say that "we are not different", though, that he is "like" everyone else, and that if were to see himself as a unique -- e.g. as "the Dalai Lama" or "the Nobel Laureate" -- then that view-of-self would be a "prison".
I think Buddhism also uses it as an argument for compassion and ethics, e.g. ...

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

... whereas, in my opinion, the Bhagavad Gita maybe doesn't say that.

Also to the extent that "we are one" is a view which may attempt to erase conventional distinctions, perhaps that's identified as one of the wrong views.

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 brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

This is wrong view.

You wrote, "playing different minds". I seem to remember reading that kind of doctrine (i.e. "playing") a long time ago, I'm not sure where -- in the kind of modern book which tries/tried to popularise Buddhism and Eastern thought in general. I don't think I've seen that in the suttas. I think it might have been a view that, "an immortal one God is playing at being mortal and being different people" -- perhaps that's a Hindu view, or something, I don't know? Or perhaps there is a Buddhist view a bit like that, somewhere? But I don't think I've met it since in any kind of canonical Buddhist text.
Yes here -- Lila (Hinduism)

Lila can be loosely translated as the "divine play". The concept of Lila is common to both non-dualist and dualist philosophical schools of Indian philosophy, but has a markedly different significance in each. Within non-dualism, Lila is a way of describing all reality, including the cosmos, as the outcome of creative play by the divine absolute (Brahman). In the dualistic schools of Vaishnavism, Lila refers to the activities of God and his devotee, as well as the macrocosmic actions of the manifest universe.

I'm not saying that Buddhism is always joyless, but I don't think I've read that particular kind of play is part of the Buddhist doctrine.

I quote from the article "Buddhism and Nondualism in Mahayana Buddhism"

According to the monk and scholar Bhikkhu Bodhi, Theravada Buddhism is neither dualistic nor nondualistic. "In contrast to the non-dualistic systems, the Buddha's approach does not aim at the discovery of a unifying principle behind or beneath our experience of the world," he wrote. The Buddha's teaching is pragmatic, and not based on some grand, speculative philosophical theory.
However, dualisms exist for Theravada Buddhism -- good and evil, suffering and happiness, wisdom and ignorance. The most significant duality is that between samsara, the realm of suffering; and nirvana, liberation from suffering. Although the Pali Canon describes nirvana as a kind of ultimate reality, "there is not the least insinuation that this reality is metaphysically indistinguishable at some profound level from its manifest opposite, samsara," Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote.
Nondualism in Mahayana Buddhism
  Buddhism proposes that all phenomena inter-exist; nothing is separate. All phenomena are perpetually conditioning all other phenomena. Things are the way they are because everything else is the way it is.
Mahayana Buddhism teaches that these interdependent phenomena also are empty of self-essence or inherent characteristics. All distinctions we make between this and that are arbitrary and exist only in our thoughts. This doesn't mean that nothing exists, but that nothing exists the way we think it does.
If nothing is separate, how do we count the myriad phenomena? And does that mean everything is One? Mahayana Buddhism often comes across as a form of monism or the teaching that all phenomena are of one substance or are one phenomenon in principle. But Nagarjuna said that phenomena are neither one nor many. The correct answer to "how many?" is "not two."
The most pernicious dualism is that of the subjective "knower" and an object of knowing. Or, in other words, the perception of "me" and "everything else."
In the Vimalakirti Sutra, the layman Vimalakirti said that wisdom is "the elimination of egoism and possessiveness. What is the elimination of egoism and possessiveness? It is the freedom from dualism. What is freedom from dualism? It is the absence of involvement with either the external or the internal. ... The internal subject and the external object are not perceived dualistically." When the dualism of subjective "knower" and object of "knowing" does not arise, what remains is pure being or pure awareness.
What about the dualities between good and evil, samsara and nirvana? In his book Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy (Humanity Books, 1996), Zen teacher David Loy said,
"The central tenet of Madhyamika Buddhism, that samsara is nirvana, is difficult to understand in any other way except as asserting the two different ways of perceiving, dually and nondually. The dualistic perception of a world of discrete objects (one of them being me) which are created and destroyed constitutes samsara." When dualistic perceptions do not arise, there is nirvana. Put another way, "nirvana is the nondual 'true nature' of samsara."
The Two Truths
  It may not be clear why the answer to "how many" is "not two." Mahayana proposes that everything exists in both an absolute and relative or conventional way. In the absolute, all phenomena are one, but in the relative, there are many distinctive phenomena.
In this sense, phenomena are both one and many. We can't say there is only one; we can't say there is more than one. So, we say, "not two."

https://www.thoughtco.com/buddhism-and-nondualism-450010
I wrote my opinion about this subject in another topic:  https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/30402
Buddha rejected people's questions about the structure or origin of the universe, existance etc and he directed his disciples towards freedom from suffering/Nibbana.


text:
When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" thing that is born and dies what do they mean?
When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" bundle of psycho-physical properties that is born and dies what do they mean: do they mean that conventional desginators like "I" only refer to different concrete things (a baby, an old man) but they also mean something different?
Specifically: can we say, conventionally or otherwise, that the old man or the baby have aged, or that the baby grew up into an old man?

“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
  Blessed One, it is the 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?

Hope I haven't misread it! He then goes on to describe dependent origination.

Which sutta[s] is this question asking about?

i'll find the quote @Dhammadhatu Chris

i can't find it @ChrisW :( someone must know...

Why not asking the Ven. Author? He could be even called.

When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" bundle of psycho-physical properties that is born and dies

The words "birth" ("jati") and "death" ("marana') are defined in SN 12.2 as producing or imputing the idea of "a being" ("satta") upon the manifestations or changing appearances of the aggregates.
What is important to understand is not so much the aggregates but how ideas of 'self', 'persons' or 'beings' are imputed upon the aggregates.
For example, when you see "my mother", "my father", "my wife", "my friend", "my enemy", "my favourite pop star", etc; and Arahant, in the same situation, sees only aggregates, elements and sense objects.

Specifically: can we say, conventionally or otherwise, that the old man or the baby have aged, or that the baby grew up into an old man?

Convention is different than ultimate truth. In ultimate truth, only aggregates change & cease. This is why there are so many suttas that says an arahant is not born, does not age, does not die (example, MN 140; SN 22.85; etc).
When there is no idea or view of a "self", "person" or "being", the ideas of birth & death do not arise.

This topic is analyzed a hundred times over in all schools. For example, in The Questions of King Milinda:

The king said: ‘He who is born, Nāgasena, does he remain the same or become another?’
[Nagasena:] ‘Neither the same nor another.’
[King:] ‘Give me an illustration.’
[N] ‘Now what do you think, O king? You were once a baby, a tender thing, and small in size, lying flat on your back. Was that the same as you who are now grown up?’
[K] ‘No. That child was one, I am another.’
[N] ‘If you are not that child, it will follow that you have had neither mother nor father, no! nor teacher. You cannot have been taught either learning, or behaviour, or wisdom. What, great king! is the mother of the embryo in the first stage different from the mother of the embryo in the second stage, or the third, or the fourth ? Is the mother of the baby a different person from the mother of the grown-up man? Is the person who goes to school one, and the same when he has finished his schooling another? Is it one who commits a crime, another who is punished by having his hands or feet cut off ?’
[K] ‘Certainly not. But what would you, Sir, say to that? ’
The Elder replied: ‘Neither I am what is now the grown up, nor was I what was the tender tiny baby, flat on its back. But all these are tied in one by means of this body.’
[K] ‘Give me an illustration.’
[N] ‘Suppose a man, O king, were to light a lamp, would it burn the night through?’
[K] ‘Yes, it might do so.’
[N] ‘Now, is it the same flame that burns in the first watch of the night, and in the second?’
[K] ‘No.’
[N] ‘Or the same that burns in the second watch and in the third?’
[K] ‘No.’
[N] ‘Then is there one lamp in the first watch, and another in the second, and another in the third?’
[K] ‘No Sir. But thanks to that lamp the light shined all the night through.’
[Nagasena:] ‘Just so, O king, does the continuity of dharmas connect. One emerges, another dissolves, connecting as it were without [a clear boundary between] the previous and the next, thus the former-consciousness and the next-consciousness cannot be categorized as either the same nor as different.’

This is then analyzed fabulously in all conceivable details by Nagarjuna in his Mulamadhyamakakarika. Basically, the idea here is that reality is not as discrete as the mind would like to believe. Things morph and develop continuously, rather like drifting clouds which only temporarily take certain recognizable shapes and are strictly speaking never the same nor are not themselves at any given point in time.
Strictly speaking, things and people don't have an immutable "core" or an atomic identity that would move through time from one moment to another. Each consequtive state of things develops from previous state through morphing, moving, and interacting - but the idea that it's still the same entity is imputed by us, it's not there.
Another traditional simile, also used in Milindapanha, is that of the milk produce cycle. As milk goes sour, then becomes butter, then ghee - does it retain its identity or not? The Buddhist answer is that the identity is an imputation of the mind. To anyone interested in Western perspective on this, I recommend a short work called "Hierarchy Theory" by Valerie Ahl and T. F. H. Allen.

I think I agree with Samana Johann's answer, i.e. "conventionally" you give a name to a person, and say that, "the person named so-and-so was born in such a year, took their retirement 65 years later, and died in some other such a year."
Buddhism warns against having self-view, including e.g. "I am this body" or "this is my house". I think it gives at several reasons for that:

SN 22.59 says something like, "the body is impermanent and you don't control it, so it's unworthy to be described as self"
MN 22 says that sorrow etc arise from assuming any self-theory
I think that later doctrines point out that things (everything), including anything like "body" etc. which you might be tempted to identify as "self", are "empty" instead of being (here I forget what term they use, but something like) "real" or "genuine" or "genuinely existent".

Nevertheless it's conventional to use "I" sometimes. "I" is the first word in this answer for example, for what that's worth, I often use it on this site to avoid speaking in a "this is the word of God" mode, i.e. to avoid e.g. making assertions such as, "Samana Johann's answer is correct", when I don't want to be that black-and-white about it. I also use words like "perhaps".
The parable of the chariot as explained to king Milinda says explicitly that such a thing as a named person is a "convention".
Buddhist doctrine describes or mentions the 5 skandhas and the 12 nidanas, and I think that's to explain what "really" exists instead of what people conventionally use to be self, e.g., "there isn't really 'me', instead what there really are are 5 skandhas, etc.", but I think those too are 'conventional' and empty.
SN 5.10 is maybe the earliest instance of the chariot allegory.
Then  there's a doctrine of kamma ("I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions") possibly to explain how past, present, and future are inter-related (the doctrine of the 12 nidanas is another description of that), but I think it does that without claiming that there's any identical or constant or eternal self.
When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" bundle of psycho-physical properties that is born and dies
Perhaps, if they did say such a thing, they might be saying something like that anything is dependently originated -- it exists because the conditions for its existence exist. And that the conditions at one time are different from the conditions at another time.
A baby exists depending on its parent, an old man doesn't, so baby and old man aren't the same.
That's true of the body but also true of perceptions, they're impermanent. Furthermore each perception is impermanent -- it doesn't exist, then it exists, then it doesn't exist, and then a different perception exists instead -- so it's not the same perception.
You might call it "a different bundle" in the same way that "grandfather's axe" or the "ship of theseus" isn't the same, though I don't know if that's Buddhist.

I read it as a reference to anicca/impermanence. Concepts like "baby" or "old man" deceives us to believe that skandhas that makes up for our existence are constant over time.

The five aggregates are form or matter, feelings or sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness.
All of these are constantly changing, depending on conditions. None of it stays the same. Also, none of them are independent. All the five aggregates arise and fall dependent on conditions.
So, what stays the same? The self?
From the Vina Sutta, we find that when different parts of a musical instrument work together, music is created. Music exists for sure, but it does not exist standalone from different parts of the musical instrument. If you break down the musical instrument into its constituent parts, you cannot find music.
Similarly with the five aggregates and the self. When the five aggregates work together, you can find the self appearing. But if you break them down to pieces and examine them carefully, there is no self in the constituent parts.
Even the self that appears when the five aggregates work together is not the same and changes.
The self is basically a mental idea, a constant fundamental identity that we give ourselves.
In the sutta quote below from SN 12.61, we find that the Buddha says it is better for an uninstructed worldling to consider the body as his self, because he can see that it is impermanent - it arises, changes and passes away.
However, mind and consciousness are always changing from moment to moment. The uninstructed worldling may cling to the idea of a self being his consciousness or mind, that he cannot easily see arising and passing away, as he would, his body.
From SN 12.61:

“Bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion
  towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become
  dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason?
  Because growth and decline is seen in this body composed of the four
  great elements, it is seen being taken up and laid aside. Therefore
  the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this
  body composed of the four great elements; he might become
  dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.
“But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and
  ‘consciousness’ —the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience
  revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be
  liberated from it. For what reason? Because for a long time this has
  been held to by him, appropriated, and grasped thus: ‘This is mine,
  this I am, this is my self.’ Therefore the uninstructed worldling is
  unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become
  dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.
“It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take
  as self this body composed of the four great elements rather than the
  mind. For what reason? Because this body composed of the four great
  elements is seen standing for one year, for two years, for three,
  four, five, or ten years, for twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years,
  for a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called ‘mind’
  and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as
  another by day and by night. Just as a monkey roaming through a forest
  grabs hold of one branch, lets that go and grabs another, then lets
  that go and grabs still another, so too that which is called ‘mind’
  and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as
  another by day and by night.

The Pali Suttas don't say that ("Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" person who is born and dies"), actually. So the question is not valid, corrupt.
If asked of what the Buddha said, the Suttas tell:

"And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden. ...The Burden

i don't understand how this is an answer

No one can help you to gain understanding. One just sees what one likes to see.

@user3293056 I think this answer contradicts the premise of the question. The question says, "The Pali suttas say that it is not the same person who etc." -- and this answer contradicts that, it says, "The Pali suttas say that the 'person' (to which or to whom people give a personal name) IS the 'carrier of the burden' (i.e. which carries 'the burden' from birth to death)". This is so (i.e. there is a sutta which says this), and if the question doesn't reference any (other) specific sutta then it's difficult to say that this answer is off-topic (i.e. isn't the same topic as the question).


text:
Critique on Kalama Sutta: Is Buddhism bad for Buddhism?
Kalama Sutta is a key part of the Buddhist teaching that tells you to question everything, not to blindly follow any dogma or teacher. This is one of the features that make this religion/philosophy so special
however this view seems to be contradictory in many Buddhist circles.
Many monks and Buddhists shave their heads and wear mallahs to identify themselves more with the doctrine (ego and attachment) or perhaps to fit in better within the "Buddhist gang" as if this dogma was the ultimate truth and they may get offended when you "dare" to question their "faith" or their idolized masters.
They rarely question the Sangha with psychology, existential philosophy, other religions and they seem to fall in love with it following this process of dependency by illusionment/attachment/joy and ultimately doubt disillusionment/detachment/sadness which is clearly explained in the Buddhist sutra itself.
Osel Hita (a Spaniard who has appointed by the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation of lama Yeshe) quit Buddhism and complained about how much suffering he had to endure during his childhood nevertheless this is rarely debated within Buddhist circles. In some Buddhist countries children are indoctrinated in the dogma therefore they see it as truth and don't question it therefore it is used as a political tool for the masses.
It is true that the Sangha may have saved some peoples lives and so has the army, Scientology and the Christian Church but this has to do with psychology, purpose in life and mental health and it doesn't make Buddhism any better.
Meditation has been proven by the World Health Organization to be beneficial for mental health nevertheless you don't hear much from monks that you don't really need to be a Buddhist to meditate.
Some features of the dogma such us Bardos, Rebirth or (reincarnation), Samsara or even Enlightenment have vague definitions or are impossible to double check because they are based of the subjective experiences of masters or monks and it's up to the practitioner to believe them or not and have the same credibility has "original sin, virgin birth, Heaven, etc." and even less than the Simulation Hypothesis. Some people left Buddhism because their views on the oneness of consciousness or karma were not compatible with the view shared by the particular sect (Zen, Chan, Tibetan, etc).
Siddhārtha Gautama was a dissident of believes the vedas to attain enlightenment and escape the wheel so Samsara so was Jesus Christ, and Lao Tse and the main spiritual figures in human history. Isn't Kalama Sutta encouraging you to do just that? Isn't Kalama Sutta telling you that it's better to be a free-thinker than a Buddhist, at least in some cases? Isn't it Buddhistic to go beyond Buddhism?
This question is an adaptation of the Reptilian Conspiracy vs Buddhism question which was not accepted in this forum and Criticism on the Buddhism from Wikipedia and both articles here and here.

“A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he
  generally believes to be true.“ Demosthenes  384-322 BC
“Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want
  their illusions destroyed.” Friedrich Nietzsche
“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not
  based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”  Carl
  Sagan
“If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at
  least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.” ―
  René Descartes
“My religion is based on truth and non-violence. Truth is my God.
  Non-violence is the means of realising Him.“ Mahatma Gandhi
John 8:32 “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you
  free.”
“There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth: not
  going all the way, and not starting.” Buddha? (or not...doesn't
  matter)

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

You are completely 100% right about this. Which is why in my Zen Master's (Seon Master Go Sung Shin) tradition, as well as in my Root Guru's (Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche) tradition, we are taught to abandon all attachments, including attachment to Dharma or to seeing oneself as a Buddhist. (Of course on this site I'm staying within the boundaries of the format, but not in a dogmatic way as you can hopefully see from my answers.)
Most Mahayana schools teach this very idea on the advanced levels. Specifically, such teachings as Zen and Mahamudra are exactly about taking this idea of going beyond Buddhism to its complete fruition. So it's a little funny that you are saying this as if you were the first to think about it, while it is in fact a big and famous part of the living tradition for about twenty six hundred years.
In fact, this topic of getting over one's attachment to Buddhism is so big, so important, and so popular, that Chogyam Trungpa wrote an entire book just about this, called "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" - you are welcome to check it out.
In my personal case, I was lucky enough to read this book in ~1995/6 - so getting over all attachments, including attachment to Buddhism, and even attachment to getting rid of attachments, has been my Main Practice for many years. Taken to its logical perfection, this is one of the most powerful liberating techniques I've known and I can't recommend it high enough. Your intuition is completely right on this.
I do recommend that you read everything by Trungpa you can lay your hands on, I bet you will find a lot to like.

Sir, this idea is also presented in Theravada school. "Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." ~ cited from Alagaddupama Sutta. Also one should not cling to Nibbana known as Vibhava tanhā which prevents himself/herself attaining Nibbana.

Yes, perfect, I almost forgot about that. Of course, the raft!

Since the Kalamas were confused in what they should or not believe, The Buddha instructed that they should be pragmatic and adopt only views and conduct which would lead to their well-being and peace of mind insted of keep bothering themselves with unverifiable competing doctrines which would lead to nowhere but to stressful mind states.
This is unrelated to the examples you give regarding the traditional customs of the monks and the Sangha because the customs are not harmful per se, they may be actually a source of joy, which serves to propel the practice. It all comes to how you relate to it, as long as there is Right View, there is no harm.
The monks would be sabotaging themselves if they start raise against traditional customs just because their wrong personal view (disregarding the issue of dukkha) say so
(which is conceit, ingratitude and cling to self-view). The practice delineated by the Buddha intend to end all stress building up the proper conditions, and to do so, is necessary to settle the attention to the proper frame of reference. Any other preoccupation is merely the mind being dragged by its passion over sensory phenomena.

This world is in bondage to attachments, clingings [sustenances], &
  biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to
  these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases,  or
  obsessions; nor is he resolved on ‘my self.’ He has no uncertainty or
  doubt that mere stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing
  away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is  independent of
  others. It’s to this extent, Kaccāna, that there is right view.
SN 12:15

For complementary explanantion of why clinging to personal views are nothing more than fuel to the fetters, See: AN 10:93 and MN 63
Regarding the rebirth doctrine as it is decribed, it's  a attempt to explain a insight of  the Buddha himself. So it's suppose, for those who follows the Buddha's footsteps, to have such  experience (whatever it may be) as well at some point.
No one is demanding you to believe in it. However, aside of the feeling of samvega (disenchantment due the briefness nature of the sensory phenomena), having conviction in rebirth, will turn the
practioner much more eager to go forth.

A lot of the "question" sounds like a vector for anti-Buddhist propaganda or just trolling -- or just off-topic i.e. trying to introduce non-Buddhist theories, or to contrast or compare Buddhist doctrine with assertions made by non-Buddhists -- but anyway I'll try to answer the question as-asked.
Isn't Kalama Sutta encouraging you to do just that? Isn't Kalama Sutta telling you that it's better to be a free-thinker than a Buddhist, at least in some cases?
From memory the Kalama sutta says,

Don't believe a doctrine just because the teacher is famous
Believe what you "know for yourselves" to be true
Believe doctrines which are "praised by the wise"
These rhetorical or Socratic questions show that you agree with the doctrines of the noble truths, i.e. that craving leads to suffering

I think that's what the Kalama sutta says.
Terms like "free thinker" come with cultural/historical baggage. It refers to people who don't believe in the literal truths of doctrines taught by the Christian churches and/or don't believe they have a monopoly on the truth.
It may be a fallacy to assume that a "free thinking" attitude, which you decide is an appropriate reaction to Church doctrine, is also an appropriate lens through which to view Buddhist doctrine.
I usually try to concentrate on what Buddhist doctrine actually says.
On reviewing the kalama sutta now I see it's not exactly about the doctrine of the four noble truths, rather it's about the doctrine of the three poisons and the Four Brahmaviharas.
It ends with something analogous to Pascal's wager which I find odd or off-topic because I think of the Dhamma being, you know, immediate, visible here-and-now. To some extent there maybe a "hereafter" though, and I think that different bits of the doctrine appeal to different people with different concerns.
Isn't it Buddhistic to go beyond Buddhism?
Yes and no, I guess.
An answer like this one might imply something about not being too attached to specific Buddhist views or doctrines.
But, I don't know, maybe that's like anything else -- e.g. in my opinion the doctrines of Newtonian mechanics are more or less true, and useful if not invaluable for certain types of problem.
Anyone might "go beyond" Newtonian mechanics, e.g. because they're a layperson who doesn't address that type of problem at all, or because they're a physicist with a need for more-advanced (e.g. relativistic) theories. Even so you don't disparage Newton's theories, it wouldn't occur to me to try to claim that they're like flat-earther theories.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

It's true that when someone says vaccines are good, you should question it and find out whether vaccines are truly good.
However, it takes too much time to do double blind scientific studies yourself, to discover whether vaccines are truly good.
The best you can do is to read enough of other people's scientific studies to determine whether vaccines are good, then finally get yourself vaccinated.
However, in your question, you are proposing that you should spend your whole life questioning vaccines without getting vaccinated. If you do that, you will probably die early from the disease that could have been prevented using the vaccine, and you would get no benefit from the vaccine.
What's even worse is if you convince other people to perpetually question and avoid the vaccine.

I'm asking about the nature of the vaccine.  What's it made of? Is it made of truth or is a placebo and I don't need the vaccine at all because the vaccine is inside of you? Perhaps that vaccine could be taken as a candy instead of a shot? What's makes the vaccine work? Perhaps I could take a Christian, a Jewish or even a Lizard vaccine. Isn't that how Buddha attained enlightenment or discovered the "vaccine"? Buddha most likely would say "there is no vaccine"

Christian / Jew / with or without religion, one can discover the Dhamma if his/her wisdom was on point. And once that happens, they will be able to see through the conflicting doctrines and pick out the true essence instead of Blind Faith.

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... ... ..." - You just need little faith to start. Walk through the path and experience the results. Then you by your own decide what is the truth.

@PbxMan Actually, your view of "Buddha most likely would say 'there is no vaccine'" may be very much in sync with Mahayana Buddhism. According to the Heart Sutra, "Also, There is No Truth of Suffering, Of the Cause of Suffering, Of the Cessation of Suffering, Nor of the Path. There is No Wisdom, and There is No Attainment Whatsoever."

suffering is a mark of existence, so is impermanence and ego. the Buddha is just selling you a treasure that is already yours but you don't know where it is. Buddhism is not the only way to find the treasure.

1)
Siddhārtha Gautama was a dissident of believes the vedas to attain enlightenment...

During the time of the Buddha, the Hindu Vedas and the Trimurthis (as
we know it today) - do not yet exist.
The Jesus of the New Testament may had many run-ins with the rabbis
of his time, but he never preached of abandoning God. And, the Testaments certainly do not mention any concept similar to Samsara.
Very little is known of Lao Tse except of his work the Tao Te Ching,
and nothing in there mentioned anything similar to Samsara, or any divinities, or "soul", and etc. And no - Lao Tse is not the founder/originator of Taoism (the religion).

2)
Isn't Kalama Sutta telling you that it's better to be a free-thinker than a Buddhist, at least in some cases? Isn't it Buddhistic to go beyond Buddhism?

The Sutta did not say that at all.
During the time of the Kalamas (in the sutta), they wanted very much to believe every gurus that passed through their village. The problem was that the gurus contradicted each other and caused confusions. And so one day the Kalamas asked the Buddha for input, and he gave them a set of "test kits". And then - the Buddha said "Yeah, you can also use those test kits on my teachings too. No problem. Please do it. Please test.".
"Free-Thinker" is a modern connotation, created by and used by people from a culture and society with entrenched beliefs in the concept of One-True-God, ie you are labeled as "religious" or a "free-thinker".

Motivated reasoning again. Kalama Sutta is telling you to have critical thinking skills not to follow any dogma because of years and years of indoctrination. If you make your critical thinking and search for truth "your religion" perhaps its' better not to follow any dogma. As said before "Buddhism is not the ultimate truth" unless you take it as a religion.

I'm afraid I had lost you there. The first part of my answer gave universally-accepted historical facts. And, no where did my answer claim or imply that "Buddhism is the ultimate truth". What are your motivation in asking the question and engaging in such debate? What do you actually hope to achieve? Whatever the answer - I hope they are all skillful and sincere.

You are not interpreting the point of the question and that's clearly motivated reasoning. 1) One those spiritual masters were indeed dissidents. 2) Kalama Sutta does indeed say that but implicitly because it advocates for intellectualism and critical thinking then again you won't see it.

@PbxMan Peace be with you.

"During the time of the Buddha, the Hindu Vedas and the Trimurthis (as we know it today) - do not yet exist" - the Vedas existed in Buddha's time, but not the trimurthis. The Buddha referred to the three Vedas (and not four like it is today) in the Canki Sutta. He also mentioned the Pali-fied names of the Vedic sages - Atthaka, Vamaka, Vamadeva, Vessamitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bharadvaja, Vasettha, Kassapa & Bhagu. Also see this answer for timeline of Hinduism vs Buddhism.

@ruben2020 Thank you for pointing me to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation of that Sutta. If you check out the other translations, you will notice they don't mention "Vedas" at all. (I will need to cross check the Pali texts). Having said that - two/three Upanishads exist during the Buddha's time - but not any of the Vedas.

@RalphTee It's also in Bodhi's translation of MN95 here and Sujato's translation of MN95 here.

@ruben2020 Thank you very much. I will check them out and make necessary knowledege "adjustment" if required so.

The Buddha’s advise to the people of Kalama in the Kalama Sutta, is to see whether whatever that is understood, and is practised, helps one to remove greed, hate, and ignorance (greed and hate arise due to ignorance).   This basis of seeing gives a filtering mechanism to weed out the doctrines that are clearly not worth pursuing. Thus the scientific method shown in the Kalama Sutta can be used as “pre-screening” to get rid of obviously unsuitable paths or “theories”.
Buddha Dhamma is not a religion in the normally accepted sense of the word “religion”. One attains Nibbana by purifying ONE’S OWN mind. The Buddha just showed WHY one should strive for Nibbana and HOW to purify one’s mind by following the Noble Eightfold Path.

1)
Many monks and Buddhists shave their heads and wear mallahs...
Unfortunately, this is a universal human problems regardless of religion. There are good and lousy monks, priest, rabbis, preachers, imams, and etc.
2)
Osel Hita (a Spaniard who has appointed by the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation...
Reincarnation is a Hindu concept. The Buddha taught of rebirth, and rejected reincarnation.
The practise of identifying a born-again person is uniquely attributed to Tibetan Buddhism. And the Tibetan Buddhists rinpoches/rishe/lamas/monks already knew that not all born-again persons are able to retain the qualities and attributes of their former selves. They took a bet with Osel Hita and they lost.
3)
Some features of the dogma such us Bardos, Rebirth or (reincarnation), Samsara or even Enlightenment have vague definitions or are impossible to double check...
And hence, this is where the Kalama Sutta speaks volume. Yes, that Sutta can't prove or disprove the Bardos, Rebirth, One-True-God, and etc. But you can use the guidelines and "test kits" in there on your spiritual journey. As a matter of fact, you can also apply it in a scientific study.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Yes humanist intellectuals love their fantasy of being a free thinker. According to them, being a free thinker is the pinnacle of humanity and not being a free thinker is horrible...
As usual from secular rationalist puthujjanas, what they claim has nothing to do with the dhamma.
The point given to the Kalamas is that it is normal to be confused by philosophers, by people who create worldviews and philosophies. Then the buddha says that for the confused people who know they are confused, they can only rely on what they know is bad and what is claimed bad by the wise, on what they know as good and what is claimed good by the wise.
THe problem is that most puthujjanas, especially the intellectual ones who hype what they call "rationality", clinging to their fantasy of reason, logic, philosophy, are just too weak to progress alone, let alone to stop being a puthujjana alone, because they refuse to see they do not know what is good and bad. THey are walled-in in their views and they either say the dhamma is wrong, or they try to mix their views with the dhamma in order to pass for good people with respect to their views and to the dhamma.

If we are not freethinkers or we don't have fee-will at all. Why should we spend though sends of hours meditating for remote shot at liberation? So in the end Buddhism is just a religion that cannot be put to test and we should that just good "faith" on the enlightened one. I think I have heard that one before.

@PbxMan Can I give you a personal recommendation? If I were you, I'd ask more direct, short, and specific question about each topic that sounds like blind faith to you. For instance, you could do a individual question asking "What does Samsara mean in the different Buddhist traditions?", or "Should we take all aspects of Buddhist doctrine literally?", or "What happens when buddhism contradicts scientific knowledge?". Maybe that would get you some straight answers. Kind regards!

@PbxMan I don't know if you've checked the channel I shared a while ago. If you haven't, here are two pretty insightful videos about the Kalama Sutta from a secular perspective, and about Buddhism for this modern and skeptical times. I hope you can take something useful for you out of them: https://youtu.be/Aa5cyQBBy-g https://youtu.be/lI83n5gE7yw

@BrianDíazFlores Thanks the first video gives more light into it