text:
Why should Mahayana practitioners strive for anything at all?
In the Theravada tradition:

There is no self in all phenomena (including the five aggregates).
The five aggregates and the rest of nature and the world is always changing and not permanent (anicca).
Emptiness is only about the emptiness of self in all phenomena (including the five aggregates). The aggregates and the world definitely exist. These are not empty.
Suffering definitely exists (first noble truth).
The Theravada practitioner has to strive to become free from suffering. Nibbana exists, and is permanent and unchanging.

Whereas, in the Mahayana tradition:

There is no self in all phenomena (including the five aggregates).
The five aggregates and the rest of nature and the world is always changing and not permanent (anicca).
Emptiness refers to the emptiness of everything (including Nirvana) - the self, the five aggregates, the world, nature etc.
According to the Heart Sutra, "There is No Truth of Suffering, Of the Cause of Suffering,Of the Cessation of Suffering, Nor of the Path."
According to the Heart Sutra, "There is No Wisdom, and There is No Attainment Whatsoever."

So, why should the Mahayana practitioner strive for anything at all, if everything is emptiness (nothing really exists), and there is no suffering at all, and there is no wisdom to be gained, and there is nothing at all to attain?

well, this is the best question that will ever appear on this site. i hope it works ;-)

The Heart Sutra is not really to the point for most people. It is like getting to the end of your medical training and having the final lecture say: "...and by the way, everybody dies eventually." Yes, but, we still practice medicine.

It is a good question @user3293056 but represents the view of nihilism. The proponents of the Middle Way and the Heart Sutra are not nihilistic. It is only misunderstanding that regards them as so.

sure @YesheTenley i agree, a good question!

Well in Mahayana, just like in Theravada, we strive for the end of striving. As @ChrisW said, Heart Sutra is written from the perspective of completion, the end of striving. This is called "taking the result as the path". Meaning, instead of discovering the result step by step, you try the result  on, like a hat, until you internalize it through getting used to it.
Another point of Heart Sutra is to serve as an antidote for attachment and reification of the raft of Dharma. Mahayana's issue with Theravada is that they sometimes get so obsessed with Dharma concepts to the point that Dharma becomes a problem, an obstacle in itself. So by reminding of its inherent emptiness we are hoping to help the student come back to the natural state, so they can experience the groundlessness and positionlessness in which there is no more need for striving.
Now, to just abandon all effort without having mastered the peaceful mind would be fooling oneself. Which is why in real life most Mahayana practitioners have to work on essentially the same practices as Theravada, whether before or after realization of emptiness.
Wouldn't it be nice if one could attain dispassion and unbinding upon hearing that everything is contrived and absolutely pointless? But habitual patterns and karmic inertia are difficult to overcome...
Although certainly in the absolute sense the universe does not care if you're enlightened or still suffer. It remains as lacking any solidity or certainty to rely on as it always were.

I'll preface my answer by suggesting that you find a qualified teacher.  That is to say, someone with years of formal study in a monastic setting leading to a qualification such as Geshe or Ajahn or equivalent.
Comparing Theravada and Mahayana is going to get you a lot of biased answers.  The two traditions organize ideas in different ways and use terms differently, and this can lead to confusion.  Pick one, and ignore the other until you get to the point where you have a really good handle on the teachings.
One of the problems we have in studying Buddhism (or any "foreign" philosophy for that matter) is that we use English words for concepts that don't really match those words precisely, and our understanding is tainted by the English meaning.  It is often better to use the Pali or Sanskrit (or even Tibetan) terms instead, so as to avoid this taint.
"Emptiness" doesn't mean nothingness.
When we say "emptiness" we mean "devoid of inherent existence".  That piece of hardened clay you call a "cup" and immediately ascribe properties to such as "used for drinking coffee" and "beautiful" isn't a cup from it's own side.  You project those properties onto it.  To that fly on your wall, it isn't a cup at all.
Similarly, you think of yourself as "me" rather than recognizing that "you" are a collection of physical components and mental processes none of which individually contain the an independent or eternal "you-ness".
So then, if we only really have as much "self" as a pile of leaves, why do we need to help each other?  Because we all still suffer.  Just because that suffering is also temporary and dependent on causes and is therefore also empty, doesn't mean it doesn't suck in the moment.
Metta

I think the Heart Sutra may be analogous to the Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15):

So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence... Whatever intent... Whatever discrimination...

Before that happens:

In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have persistence, [etc.]

One way in which the Mahayana might be supposed to differ from the Theravada, perhaps, is that the Heart Sutra is ascribed to Avalokiteśvara ("who embodies the compassion of all Buddhas").
But the Theravada tradition too has an answer to the question "why would a Buddha, why did the Buddha, strive?" (e.g. for those who have little dust in their eyes; or Mahayana for all sentient beings).

Maybe some Mahayana practitioners don't strive: see for example this answer; see also this answer.

To give a more specific or less theoretical example, why did Thich Nhat Hanh strive?

Oprah: Thank you for the honor of talking to you. Just being in your
presence, I feel less stressed than when the day started. You have
such a peaceful aura. Are you always this content?
Nhat Hanh: This is my training, this is my practice. And I try to live
every moment like that, to keep the peace in myself.
Oprah: Because you can't give it to others if you don't have it in
yourself.
Nhat Hanh: Right.
Oprah: I see. I know that you were born in Vietnam in 1926. Is there
any wonderful memory of your childhood that you can share?
Nhat Hanh: The day I saw a picture of the Buddha in a magazine.
Oprah: How old were you?
Nhat Hanh: I was 7, 8. He was sitting on the grass, very peaceful,
smiling. I was impressed. Around me, people were not like that, so I
had the desire to be like him.

(the latter quote is from Oprah Talks to Thich Nhat Hanh)

Sure, why not? It's like one strives to not strive. It would be nice if we could just rip the coating of defilement off of ourselves to reveal the Buddha inside. It take's awhile to get naked, we got to strive but we don't have to strive to be a Buddha that is wearing a defilement suit.
                                         AND

There is No Truth of Suffering, the Cause of Suffering, the Cessation of Suffering, Nor of the Path....
 There is No Wisdom, and There is No Attainment Whatsoever
These kind of teachings are correct but can be misleading. The teachers mean that none of these things exist in "ultimate reality" but they do exist in "conceptual reality". We aren't trying to vilify conceptual reality. The idea is  to experience ultimate reality and know the difference between  The conceptual and ultimate realities. If we didn't have conceptual reality then we wouldn't be able to talk to each other , no step by step directions, there would be no BuddhismSE forum and there could be no suttas.
-Metta :)

Because no amount of truth is going to keep unrealized people from suffering from delusion.  The real work is the liberation of all sentient beings.

But first the real work is to liberate yourself. How can one half in mud get another out?

Emptiness refers to the emptiness of everything (including Nirvana) - the self, the five aggregates, the world, nature etc.
Indeed it does. Everything is empty of inherent existence. Nothing exists inherently or essentially. Not the Buddha, not Nirvana, not the 4NT, not suffering, not the cessation of suffering... Why? Because inherent existence is an impossible mode of existence.
Still, all of these definitely exist: the Buddha, Nirvana, the 4NT, suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path leading to the cessation of suffering.
According to the Heart Sutra, "There is No Truth of Suffering, Of the Cause of Suffering, Of the Cessation of Suffering, Nor of the Path."
You are missing an important caveat that is stressed again and again in all the commentary literature on the Heart Sutra. There is no inherent or essential Truth of Suffering, no inherent or essential Cause of Suffering, no inherent or essential Cessation of Suffering, and no essential or inherent Path leading to the Cessation of Suffering.
There... fixed to avoid misunderstanding.
So, why should the Mahayana practitioner strive for anything at all, if everything is emptiness (nothing really exists), and there is no suffering at all, and there is no wisdom to be gained, and there is nothing at all to attain?
Because illusion-like suffering, wisdom, and attainments do exist. Again, if you insist upon falling to the extreme of nihilism or insist that this is what proponents of the Middle Way are doing, then you are indicting the Buddha himself as you yourself know he propounded the Middle Way free from the extremes.
Consider: essentialists who believe in atman can and do regularly use
entirely analogous misunderstandings and logics to indict the Theravada. That they are capable of these misunderstandings does not render them true and correct :)

There's different answers, and different people even will tell you different things, let alone different texts.
I have two answers. The 1st is that, because of meditation and good teachers, sentient beings can have faith in their Buddha Nature, and work to fully realise that, like anyone can work at their ideals, without fully understanding them.
Also maybe parinirvana (the complete extinction of the skandhas) may have some value.

any comment on the downvote?dogma

I didn't downvote, but I didn't understand the last sentence. And, to help tie the previous sentence of the answer the question, how can "there is no attainment" etc. be compatible with "working at their ideals" -- what ideal?

In Theravada I think that parinirvana means "nirvana without remainder" i.e. death. I read (a translation of the) Pali Maha-parinibbana Sutta, but not the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra: so if (assuming) your use of "parinirvana" has any special (Mahayana-specific) meaning, then I didn't understand that; but it was saying "may have some value" that I especially didn't understand; what value? And how does it relate to the question? I notice that the Pali sutta ends with, "Strive heedfully" (Appamadena sampadetha) but I don't know how to use that to explain why Mahayana practitioners strive.

The way I understood emptiness was through the framework elaborated by the Dalai Lama in his books. Within this framework, emptiness doesn't mean 'nothingness', but rather emptiness of intrinsic nature. This means, by the philosophy of Nagarjuna, that things are dependently originated. They arise as conditioned by cause and effect.
Also, the framework of Nagarjuna distinguishes between conventional and ultimate reality. Conventional means how things appear in the everyday, while ultimate truth is perceiving reality from a perspective of wisdom. So, for example, there are conventional realities, a chair does exist, and this is within the view of dependent origination linked with causality. However, there is an ultimate reality whereby things exist as emptiness, that is lacking intrinsic essence.
I would liken this to a chair existing as a chair (conventional) but also as interacting forces at different scopes, i.e. atoms, molecules, perceptions, etc. all interacting together in a non-definable way (ultimate).
So, to answer your question, there are people suffering in the world, but these individuals lack intrinsic essence: ultimately, when analyzed with discriminating wisdom, these individuals fail to intrinsically exist. In simple terms, there are people needing help but they exist in a way reliant on emptiness.
The Heart Sutra, once again from the Dalai Lama's books, would be definitive rather than requiring interpretation. In this sense, it explains reality from the point of view of emptiness, from ultimate reality. So, indeed, from ultimate reality nothing exists, and the Heart Sutra is elaborating upon that reality, is showing this reality. We don't need to interpret within it: ultimate reality is portrayed in it. However, the conventional reality of every day appears in stark contrast with its tenets. (But in a sense, not really. Reality is ultimate, just as atoms are 'truer' than the chair: it is our perception that shows us the conventional.)
So ANSWER PART 1: There is a conventional reality underlying the ultimate nature of phenomena. There are real dhammas like striving in this reality.
Then, I would suggest the Mahayana viewpoint emphasizes compassion. I would liken compassion and emptiness' interaction as a bunch of moths flying around a lamp. The shadows of these moths are like the suffering of beings, tied with the moths. And, sometimes these shadows reflect the moths in form (conventional) but sometimes the shadows don't even resemble the moths (ultimate). However, these are the SAME shadows, only in different moment, different aspects. Compassion is like the lamp: it always interacts with the suffering, the shadows, but not necessarily in an obvious, categorically separate way.
So, no matter if the shadows are distinct, fused into a mass, light, dark, discernible or vague: in all cases, compassion brightens and relieves suffering as the lamp dispels the shadows. What changes is whether we are categorizing the shadows as intrinsic entities, distinct dhammas (e.g. moths), or merely seeing them as they actually are: a bunch of shadows.
Hence, after this perhaps too elaborate simile, ANSWER PART 2 is that compassion targets suffering even without individual entities to strive for. It connects with suffering causing positive karma, future positive rebirth, and striving altogether.
Hopes this helps,
Eggman.
PS: The books I refer to are here, here, here, and here.

Theravadin Buddhism does not refer to sunyata (emptiness). It is best viewed as a psychology of karma and method of overcoming misleading karma (suffering). Mahayana Buddhism strives to overcome self-centeredness. The experience of sunyata is considered to be the only way to thoroughly erase this self-centeredness. Hence the Mahayana practitioner does indeed have a goal. The fact that you raise the question you have asked indicates a very superficial understanding of Mahayana Buddhism. Understanding karma would be a far more profitable pursuit of insight.

What one is taught depends on the teacher not really the school. Overcoming self centeredness IS overcoming misleading karma, you know that right?  One helps themselves by helping other beings. One sees themself as just another being .

I have known only a few teachers. It would be unfair of me to promote only the teachers I know. So I stick to talking about the schools and try to be as fair as possible to them. Of course, self-centeredness is sankhara, as taught by both Theravada and Mahayana. I was merely pointing out that sunyata is not a source of psychological insight (which is a form of relative truth). I do not see where we disagree.

Me either. I was pretty sure you new that but I get curious.

I don't think Ruben has a superficial understanding at all... He is struggling just like all of us ordinary beings with understanding suchness, but his questions suggest a subtlety that many other ordinary beings lack.

@YesheTenley Everyone deserves to be loved. We all do our best. There are many important psychological insights not found in the Buddhist teachings. But I stick to the purpose of this Buddhist exchange and that is to discuss Buddhist concepts that are defined in detail by traditional Buddhist texts. One such concept is the view that Absolute Truth is not a form of Relative Truth. Many people make the mistake of claiming "There is no attainment whatsoever" to be a Relative Truth. This claim is a false belief and a classical hindrance to Mahayana view of Enlightenment. If Ruben believes this cla


text:
Can one become so sensitive by an enlightenment that one can't have people near/around you?
Is this good or 'bad' and should there be something done about it? So some person just picks up to much 'information' about other humans that it makes oneself emotionally to much loaded.
Especially during nights with out of the body experiences.

Yes, it is certainly possible to be spiritually hyper-sensitive however this is more related to expanded states of consciousness rather than Buddhist enlightenment. In Buddhist enlightenment, all things, both internally & externally are viewed as not-self (anatta) and with dispassion (viraga) & equanimity (upekkha). Some spiritually/consciously expanded people live their lives is solitude however this does not mean they are enlightened in a Buddhist sense.

I assume by "enlightenment" you mean some profound realization, but not Nirvana. In this case the answer to your question is "yes".
If this sensitivity is troubling you, then it's bad and you should do something about it. If it's not troubling you, it's neither good nor bad and you don't need to do anything about it. If it's making your life easier, then it's good and you don't need to do anything about it.
On the other hand, speaking about "enlightenment" as Nirvana:
If one before Nirvana is sensitive to people because of views about self, after Nirvana not sensitive to people.
If one before Nirvana is sensitive to people not because of views about self, after Nirvana still sensitive to people.
If one before Nirvana is not sensitive to people because of views about self, after Nirvana not sensitive to people.
If one before Nirvana is not sensitive to people not because of views about self, after Nirvana not sensitive to people.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Neighbour from "hell"
Imagine you live in an urban area, have a job, you have to sleep well so that your mind is well rested.
Your neighbour doesnt work, he gets government money help. The problem is that when night arrives, he drugs himself, listen music in the most higher bass and volume at 4 in the morning. You call him attention, he continues to do the same.
If you call the police, probably it will develop a further problem with that neighbour and end up in a violent answer from him.
According to Buddhism, how can one deal with such a situation in a skillful manner?

Show your kindness (compassion), with Buddhist wisdom ;)
... for ur particular case, buy ur neigbhour a set of headphone in supreme quality, with a note inserted e.g.: my favourite brand, cool stuff. Enjoy music any time, day & night, dusk till dawn!
You may knock on the door to hand it to him, or send by mail. Remember, wrap it in nice gift paper, sign your name, with smile. Consider, the cost to move or cost of time to deal with engaging police/third party, this gift is tiny.
And surely you will then hv a neighbour who will let u stayed in raining day when u forgot ur key waiting for the locksmith... 囧

I liked your suggestion, and appreciate your kindness. But i think wouldnt work. Either way is too late, i moved. Was just curious about what can i possibly done if i had more energy and patience.

@nm85 dang you moved fast...

Three options: (i) advise your neighbour in a very kind & gentle manner; if this fails; (ii) contact legal authorities; if this fails; (iii) move.

Same but slightly different issue here. Can't tell which apartment the music comes from because it is so loud. Starts between 4AM and ends as late as 1AM.
Can often meditate despite the sound. One time however the "music" was so loud there was no concentration to be had. Then had to remember the words of, I believe, Ajahn Chah, who reminds that is not the noise bothering us but it is us bothering the noise.
Didn't help the meditation then, but did provide some insights. Now the sound doesn't bother so much. I sleep better. Meditate better, often despite the decibel.
Perhaps contemplation on sound might be beneficial in any quiet time that arises. Metta Meditation couldn't hurt either if nothing more than to soften your heart and mind.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Is nirvana a process?
I have often been told that nirvana is not a state or entity, because there are no real states or entities in Mahayana Buddhism.
If so, is that nirvanisation (a word I've seen for the process of coming to enlightenment) a state for those that undergo it?

i can cite for the 1st clause, if you like?

Why is Nirvana not state?

@ruben2020 just a well known piece of scholarship, i think. let me find st to cite

@ruben2020 looks like i can't find the sd scholarship, and it's just something i've been repeatedly told by a scholar. hm, not sure about the question, now

Nirvana cannot be a process because this would make Nirvana 'conditioned'.
Nirvana is a state (dhamma; ṭhānaṃ) or a sense object/base (ayatana; Udana 8.1).

There is, bhikkhus, that base (ayatana) where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base
  consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of
  nothingness, no base consisting of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another
  world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is
  no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed,
  not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering. Ud
  8.1

'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle,
  to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in
  attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a
  generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying
  attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard
  to see. This state (ṭhānaṃ), too, is hard to see: the calming of all
  fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of
  craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana. MN 26

ṭhāna
standing; the act of standing, being fixed or stationary; continuance.
  a place; a locality; a spot; a site; a location; a suitable place; a
  worthy object. region, sphere; metaphysical or spiritual state.
  situation; station; office; position. position; state. occasion; case,
  occurrence; matter. quality; attribute, characteristic. ground, basis;
  reason, cause. stance; standpoint; condition.

well your answer is fine, a little motontonic, as you avoid the non cogntiion of emptiness, non abiding, and the term "nirvanised" which was what i was getting at the question. but i can't see a better one

Nirvana & emptiness are cognitions & abidings (MN 151), at least in Pali Buddhism. Regards


text:
Need help understanding this
I am reading up on the jhana and theres this paragraphs. There talking about the 3 ways Beginning, Middle & End and the 10 characteristic of jhana. I'm not sure what im suppose to do or what this is suppose to mean. The book is the path to purification.

“‘Of the first jhána intensification of equanimity is the middle’: how many
  characteristics has the middle? The middle has three characteristics. He [now]
  looks on with equanimity at the mind that is purified; he looks on with equanimity
  at it as having made way for serenity; he looks on with equanimity at the
  appearance of unity.32 And in that he [now] looks on with equanimity at the
  mind that is purified and looks on with equanimity at it as having made way for
  serenity and looks on with equanimity at the appearance of unity, that
  intensification of equanimity is the middle of the first jhána. These are the three
  characteristics of the middle. Hence it is said: ‘The first jhána is good in the
  middle which possesses three characteristics.’

Heres the full page. The parts specifically im asking about is on line 112

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

My reading of the text finds there is only one practise to perform, namely, looking on with equanimity. The other characteristics, such as serenity, unity, etc, occur automatically when the mind automatically manifests jhana from the practice of developing equanimity.
The Pali scriptures (SN 48.10) teach jhana is developed by making 'letting go' the meditation object. The text in question is stating when the mind jhana becomes serene or has rapture, etc, to look upon those features & characteristics with equanimity. In other worlds, don't cling to those characteristics & features.

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go (vossagga), attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters & remains in the first jhana... SN 48.10

So basically just focus on the jhana object. And once you reach jhana don't cling to the jhana liberation and bliss?

Yes. Exactly. Don't ever cling, both before jhana, during jhana & after jhana. Regards

That is an effect of dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ, that appear before your quote.
My link is just a head. There is more information in that book after the head.
For a guideline:
Beginning = complete and perfect practicing of all dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ (achieved jhāna).
Middle = an effect of the 7th of dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ.
End = an effect of the 6th of dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ.
You must memorize dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ head, and meditate it to get a deep understanding.
Note: I never read throughout the english translation version (my english is terrible), that make me not sure about the translation's quality. So you can ask more, if you see something that is unclear.

Unlimited your welcome for dhamma ^.^

You might or (might not) want to edit your answer (If you think it would help the OP), to highlight the difference or connection between "cittavisuddhi's object" versus "ñāṇadassanavisuddhi's object".

Does "making it his object to let go" means "He taking 'to letting go' to be 'what he sense by his consciouness'", in the other hand "He try to sense 'to letting go'",  in the other hand  "He try to know 'to letting go'"? Because by pali's grammar, it should translate as "he take something to know by his mind". "Something" refer to "to letting go".

In the other hand, "In dependence on the intellect (=previous-mind) & ideas (such as  'to letting go') there arises intellect-consciousness (=next-mind) ". Object in tipitaka doesn't mean goal or target.


text:
Wise reflection on Dhamma with momentary concentration, without meditation
In the essay entitled "The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest" by Ven. Nyanaponika, he wrote:

Not only the meditative absorptions but also lesser degrees of mental
  concentration are impeded by these five hindrances. So is the
  "neighborhood" (or "access") concentration (upacarasamadhi), being
  the preliminary stage for the fully absorbed concentration (appana)
  reached in jhana. Likewise excluded by the presence of the hindrances
  is the momentary concentration (khanikasamadhi) which has the
  strength of neighborhood concentration and is required for mature
  insight (vipassana). But apart from these higher stages of mental
  development, any earnest attempt at clear thinking and pure living
  will be seriously affected by the presence of these five hindrances.
This widespread harmful influence of the five hindrances shows the
  urgent necessity of breaking down their power by constant effort. One
  should not believe it sufficient to turn one's attention to the
  hindrances only at the moment when one sits down for meditation. Such
  last-minute effort in suppressing the hindrances will rarely be
  successful unless helped by previous endeavor during one's ordinary
  life.

The above excerpt and this video featuring a talk by Ven. Dhammavuddho, implies that the Five Hindrances (panca nivaranani) not just affect meditation. They could also habitually obsess one's mind and prevent progress even outside meditation. I also see that they are among the ten fetters (samyojana).
Questions:

What is momentary concentration (khanikasamadhi)? Is it the kind of concentration that was found in those listening attentively to the Buddha who attained stream entry at the end of the discourse (although they did not have any meditation experience)?
How does one cultivate momentary concentration (khanikasamadhi)? I guess one also needs to overcome the five hindrances (panca nivaranani) in the process of cultivating momentary concentration.
What is wise reflection (yoniso manasikara)? Is this the kind of reflection that was found in those listening attentively to the Buddha who attained stream entry at the end of the discourse (although they did not have any meditation experience)? This is implied in Ven. Dhammavuddho's talk.
What is the relationship between wise reflection (yoniso manasikara) and momentary concentration (khanikasamadhi)? Is it like applying momentary concentration to wise reflection (outside meditation)?
What is the relationship between mindfulness (sati) and the other two - wise reflection (yoniso manasikara) and momentary concentration (khanikasamadhi)?
Do these factors make it possible for one to understand the Dhamma and attain stream entry without meditation, simply by wisely reflecting on the Dhamma with momentary concentration (which could only occur when the five hindrances are not present)? This is implied in Ven. Dhammavuddho's talk.

Related: Can you attain stream entry without meditation?

You ask many questions in one post. Khanika, Upacara and Appana are Abhidhamma teaching. Yoniso manasikara, Sati, panca nivarana are mainly  Sutta teachings. https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/what-are-khanika-upacara-and-appana-samadhi/6604/6

In nutshell, these terms refer to the different stages of concentration. In my experience, you will be better off if you try to understand Sutta Jhana. They are user-friendly and organic.

Sounds like how I practice.

What is momentary concentration (khanikasamadhi)? Is it the kind of
  concentration that was found in those listening attentively to the
  Buddha who attained stream entry at the end of the discourse (although
  they did not have any meditation experience)?

I have not studied much about khanikasamadhi apart from one book which states it is not a genuine samadhi, which I would agree with.

My research finds the idea about three kinds of samadhi are those of Buddhaghosa; found in his Visuddhimagga & commentary on the DN (Sumangala-vilasini); rather than of the Buddha. I do not see the point of trying to understand the teachings of the Buddha by taking refuge in questionable teachers, such as Buddhaghosa & his disciples, such as Nyanaponika.
Khanikasamadhi sounds like a worldly concentration, such as when self or ego tries to focus on a meditation object. To experience stream-entry, I think neighbourhood/access concentration is required; which is probably why it is called "access" concentration.

How does one cultivate momentary concentration (khanikasamadhi)? I
  guess one also needs to overcome the five hindrances (panca
  nivaranani) in the process of cultivating momentary concentration.

Personally, I would disagree with Nyanaponika's ideas. If the concentration was not impaired by hindrances, why would it be called "momentary" concentration?

What is wise reflection (yoniso manasikara)? Is this the kind of
  reflection that was found in those listening attentively to the Buddha
  who attained stream entry at the end of the discourse (although they
  did not have any meditation experience)? This is implied in Ven.
  Dhammavuddho's talk.

No. Wise reflection means to think or ponder. It is wisdom faculty rather than concentration faculty. Stream-entry obviously occurs via direct seeing or vipassana rather than via wise refection.

What is the relationship between wise reflection (yoniso manasikara)
  and momentary concentration (khanikasamadhi)? Is it like applying
  momentary concentration to wise reflection (outside meditation)?

Imo, there is no relationship. Wise reflection can cut through hindrances and can lead directly to be able to develop access concentration; as is described in MN 19. Where as momentary concentration is the clumsy efforts of the puthujjana that meditates with craving & ego.

*What is the relationship between mindfulness (sati) and the other two - wise reflection (yoniso manasikara) and momentary concentration (khanikasamadhi)?

Mindfulness remembers to engage wise reflection. Where as momentary concentration is generally the result of wrong mindfulness, i.e., meditating with craving & ego.

Do these factors make it possible for one to
  understand the Dhamma and attain stream entry without meditation,
  simply by wisely reflecting on the Dhamma with momentary concentration
  (which could only occur when the five hindrances are not present)?
  This is implied in Ven. Dhammavuddho's talk.*

Stream-entry must taste liberation, which is why stream-entry extinguishes doubt about the teachings. Therefore, wise reflection alone probably cannot lead to stream-entry because the taste of liberation includes the absence of thinking.

The Buddha taught the five hindrances cannot be removed when hearing the wrong teachings given by unworthy people (AN 10.61). These matters cannot be understood by taking monks seriously who cannot speak one sentence without say "uh", "ha", many times in one sentence. A monk with right mindfulness is at least aware of the quality of his speech when he talks.

to 1.: yes
2.: "overcome the five hindrances" is prereqisite for samma samadhi. "How does one cultivate momentary concentration", it's a product of the prerequisites, a kammic effect.
3.: attention directed to see the circle of becoming and decay, e.g. includes certain sati
4.+ 5.: attention, the view direction; sati, keeping this and sequence in mind; samadhi the product, effect. If there is the "disturbance" of thinking in between, it will be not "direct perceived" but stays to certain amount a blurred perception.

Yes, and only in that way. Whether one might sit, walk, stand or ly.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, and not meant for trade for worlds possible gainings]

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


text:
Does self end after death?
Does self end after death?
Please note:
In my question »death« means: the physical processes of brokenness, graying, wrinkling, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty which turn the physical body into dust. Materialistic death, physical death, the ending of life death that we see happening every day on television, i.e. death that happens when somebody is killed by pistol, disease, car accident, etc. Death that happens at complete breakup of the physical body.
And »self« means: grasping (upadana) as »I«, »me« and »mine« to one or more of the five aggregates (physicality, feeling, perception, mental formations and sense consciousness) with craving (tanha).

Why not simply ask if there's life after death?

Death & grasping are one & the same thing. I explained this in my answer. The word 'death' ('marana') has the same root as 'Mara' ('Satan'). Many suttas (eg. SN 22.63) say grasping the five aggregates is Mara.

(Maybe) Better to put your update into a new question because it would confuse everything. Maybe Beginner like to answer this question independently.

In the Dhammapada 153-154, we find the Buddha exclaiming:

Through the round of many births I roamed
  without reward,
  without rest,
  seeking the house-builder.
  Painful is birth
  again & again.
House-builder, you're seen!
  You will not build a house again.
  All your rafters broken,
  the ridge pole dismantled,
  immersed in dismantling, the mind
  has attained to the end of craving.

The commentary on these verses by Ven. Thanissaro states:

DhpA: These verses were the Buddha's first utterance after his full
  Awakening. For some reason, they are not reported in any of the other
  canonical accounts of the events following on the Awakening.
DhpA: "House" = selfhood; house-builder = craving. "House" may also
  refer to the nine abodes of beings — the seven stations of
  consciousness and two spheres (see Khp 4 and DN 15).
The word anibbisam in 153 can be read either as the negative gerund of
  nibbisati ("earning, gaining a reward") or as the negative gerund of
  nivisati, altered to fit the meter, meaning "coming to a rest,
  settled, situated." Both readings make sense in the context of the
  verse, so the word is probably intended to have a double meaning:
  without reward, without rest.

The commentary by Acharya Buddharakkhita states:

According to the commentary, these verses are the Buddha's "Song of
  Victory," his first utterance after his Enlightenment. The house is
  individualized existence in samsara, the house-builder craving, the
  rafters the passions and the ridge-pole ignorance.

I interpret this as saying that the self ("house") is deconstructed at death, but reconstructed again in the following birth, due to craving ("house-builder"), according to dependent origination.
So, the answer to your question would be "yes, it ends, but then it arises again".

Apparently, this question was asked with the skeptical view on whether rebirth truly exists or not.
I think this reference from the DN2 should lay our doubts to rest:

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
  free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
  imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the
  recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his
  manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand,
  one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of
  cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion,
  [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had
  such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure
  and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I
  re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan,
  had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of
  pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that
  state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in
  their modes and details. Just as if a man were to go from his home
  village to another village, and then from that village to yet another
  village, and then from that village back to his home village. The
  thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that
  village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way,
  talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that
  village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a
  way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in
  such a way. From that village I came back home.' In the same way —
  with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
  free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
  imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of
  the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past
  lives... in their modes and details.

If you need any commentary translation, I really welcome you (and everyone who trusting in mahāvihāra's tipitaka) to ask the translation and
any pāli-reference from me. I am sorry to invite you in this answer's reply because I don't know how can I contact someone in this site.

Thanks @BonnWarapol . There seems to be a Pali line-by-line translation and commentary available here by a Burmese author.

I refer to all tipitaka's commentaries, not just dhammapada's commentary. Every part of tipitaka have their own commentary. And most of commentaries have their own sub-commentary. All of these commentaries were written by tipitaka-memorizer.

@ruben2020 Do you think that what you said in your answer can be realized by oneself with own experience? If "yes", do you think that this realization could be false?

@beginner Since the Buddha realized it by himself, so I guess it's possible for one to realize this with one's own insight. Please see DN2 for "Recollection of Past Lives" where the Buddha says that it is possible to realize it for oneself. If you think the Buddha's realization is false, then you don't have confidence in the Buddha. I updated my answer with a quote from the DN2. Please see whether you think you can interpret it any other way, other than what I consider as the obvious fact of rebirth.

Likewise the "mental" (process, if liking to make such a differenciation, since it requires always both. the is no such as a rupa-process, and a nama-process), "Beginner". It's, if not gained Awakening, an ongoing becoming and decay of nama (mentality) and rupa (item/object/matter), an "endless" process of "self" becoming and decay, caused by craving and ignorance, since a long, long time.
(Becomming of) Atta, (the grasp) does/is not end with the death of what ever body (rupa), from one atta to another atta. Moment for moment, life for life, as long as not see the stream as it is
Timsa
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gain.)

I updated my question. Please update your answer so I can see your answer to my updated question.

See note at your question, Nyom @beginner .

Self is paññatti. It is not grasping.
Grasping arise to attach/to cling khandha and paññatti, that are grasping's object. But paññatti never arise, so self never begin or end. Similarly, when you dream. The dreaming-mind is real and arising. But it's object never arise and never vanish, just an imagination of mind. So, self is not real.
Furthermore, for aggregates and grasping, in next life, is already taught that still arise until an ignorant and a craving still is not destroyed by arahanta's enlightenment . Because, there is a future-clinging-aggregate, and that clinging will try (kamma-bhava, kamma-becoming) to have (before death=get new thing, after death=rebirth) that future-clinging-aggregate. So in Khandhasutta taught:

"Whatever form — past, future (form-clinging-aggregate), or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: That is called the form clinging-aggregate.

And Paṭiccasamuppāda taught:

From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From
   clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.

Furthermore, we choose to be mahāvihāra theravāda buddhist (because we using mahāvihāra's tipitaka) because we want to have anytime and anywhere security by make every possible protection to protect every of your future self from every possible insecure. If you still lazy to protect your self from next life/rebirth (by making sure you [five aggregates] must never arise anymore), you are not mahāvihāra theravāda buddhist practitioner. Also, you never understand throughout the theravāda-tipitaka's concept.

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

Self continues after death. Is incorrect.
Self ends after death. Is incorrect.
Both statements are incorrect.
Why are both incorrect?
Firstly, the Buddha said they are both incorrect:

"Then King Pasenadi Kosala went to the bhikkhuni Khema and, on
  arrival, having bowed down to her, sat to one side. As he was sitting
  there he said to her, "Now then, lady, does the Tathagata exist after
  death?"
"That, great king, has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The
  Tathagata exists after death.'"
"Well then, lady, does the Tathagata not exist after death?"
"Great king, that too has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The
  Tathagata does not exist after death.'"
"Then does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death?"
"That has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata both
  exists and does not exist after death.'"
"Well then, does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after
  death?"
"That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata
  neither exists nor does not exist after death.'""

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.001.than.html
Secondly, even Buddhadasa, a venerable teacher who didn't use faith in his Dhamma teachings, never denied nor accepted rebirth, but said that both statements are incorrect:

"Listen to the Buddhist teaching: there isn’t a person; there isn’t
  anyone to die, to be born, or be reborn; there is only the stream of
  concocting, the concocting of the khandhas(aggregates),
  thedhātus(elements), and the āyatanas(sense media) in accordance with
  the law of nature."
"To sum up, since olden times there have been two schools: one
  teaching that there is death and then birth, and one that there is
  death but no subsequent birth. Now, which should we choose?"
"Both beliefs, however, are really incorrect, because the fact is that
  there isn’t anyone to be born or to not be born."

Source: http://www.suanmokkh.org/system/books/files/000/000/014/original/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Concerning_Birth.pdf?1462866820
Thus, to claim that there is self after death, would be in contradiction to Buddhadasa's and Buddhist teachings, because Buddhadasa's and Buddhist teaching teach us "there isn't anyone to die".
On the other hand, to claim there is no self after death, would be again in contradiction to Buddhadasa's and Buddhist teachings, because Buddhadasa's and Buddhist teaching teach us "there isn't anyone to be born".
Thus, both statements "There is self after death" and "There is no self after death" are incorrect.
Now, this was claimed by Buddhadasa, a venerable teacher, an arahat. We should listen to him and study his teachings carefully. He doesn't teach by using faith. He concentrates on this life. He doesn't do that because he believes there is no self after death, quite the opposite, he knows that to claim "there is no self after death" is in contradiction to the Buddhist teachings, thus he doesn't claim it, but rejects it as being incorrect! Furthermore, he also knows that to claim "there is self after death" is again in contradiction to the Buddhist teachings, thus he doesn't claim it, but rejects it as being incorrect!

"however, the true Buddhist message is that there isn’t a
  being or a person, only ever-changing processes of concocting, of
  compounding, with nobody involved in them."

Source: http://www.suanmokkh.org/system/books/files/000/000/014/original/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Concerning_Birth.pdf?1462866820
The above statement is key.
The above is exactly the purpose of Buddhadasa's and Buddhist teaching. It is to realize anatta. To see. To penetrate deeply into it.
If this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding, with nobody involved in them" would stop or continue after the annihilation of the physical body, Buddhadasa and other venerable Dhamma teachers would surely teach us so. But we can see that they don't teach us so. They teach us the opposite: to claim that this process stops or continues after the annihilation of the physical body is incorrect. They teach us that both of these views (stops or continues) are incorrect.
To expound the truth why both views are incorrect, we should investigate it further:

To claim that this process stops after the complete annihilation of the physical body is incorrect. This process doesn't magically stop after the complete annihilation of the physical body. Why it doesn't just stop?

Because there isn't anyone to die. Since there isn't anyone to die, nobody is involved with this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding".  If there really was someone involved with this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding", when that person would be annihiliated, the "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" would stop after that person's annihilation. Since that person would be involved in the "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding", with the annihilation of that person, the "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" would stop. But since there isn't anyone to be annihilated nor there is anyone involved in these "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding", this process can't just magically stop with the annihilation of the physical body. Just think about it: if there isn't anyone involved in this process, then why does this process run?? Nobody is involved in it, so why does it run?? Who/what runs it?!
If there isn't anyone involved in it, then neither the physical body is involved in it nor anything in the entire universe at all is involved in it! If neither the physicall body is involved in it nor anything in the entire universe at all, that would mean, that if the physical body and everything in the universe is annihilated, this process wouldn't stop!! This "total annihilation" would not affect this process a single bit!

On the other hand, to claim that this process restarts after the complete annihilation of the physical body is again incorrect. This process doesn't magically restart after the complete annihilation of the physical body. Why it doesn't restart?

Because there isn't anyone to be born. Since there isn't anyone to be born, nobody can become involved with this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding".  If there really would be someone involved with this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding", when that person would be created, the "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" would start after that person's creation. Since that person would become involved in the "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding", with the creation of that person, the "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" would start. But since there isn't anyone to be created nor there is anyone involved in these "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding", this process can't just magically restart after the complete annihilation of the physical body. Just think about it: if there isn't anyone involved in this process, then how can this process restart?? Nobody is involved in it, so why did it start?? Who/what started it?
If there isn't anyone involved in it, then neither the physical body is involved in it nor anything in the entire universe at all is involved in it! If neither the physicall body is involved in it nor anything in the entire universe at all, that would mean, that if the physicall body and everything in the universe is annihilated and then recreated, this process wouldn't restart!! This "total annihilation and recreation" would not affect this process a single bit!

On the other hand, to claim that this process continues after the complete annihilation of the physical body is again incorrect. This process doesn't magically continue after the complete annihilation of the physical body. Why it doesn't continue?

Because there isn't anyone involved in these "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding". Since there isn't anyone involved in these "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding", this process can't just magically continue after the complete annihilation of the physical body. Just think about it: if there isn't anyone involved in this process, then why is this process running RIGHT NOW?? Nobody is involved in it, so why is it running?? Who/what is running it? How can it be even running if nobody is involved in it?
Thus, again we come to the conclusion that both statements "There is self after death" and "There is no self after death" are incorrect.
If this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" can't restart (remember, there is nobody involved in these processes), then why these processes started in the first place? If this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" have nobody involved in them (remember, there is nobody involved in these processes), then why these processes keep running?
These processes started because of craving. An example would be craving for views: "self continues after death" or "self ends after death". Whenever there is craving for views, the wheel of this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" starts turning, which creates potential for suffering. (Please note that "craving for views" is no different than having a belief. A belief is nothing else but "craving for a view")
These processes keep running because of grasping (upadana) as "I", "me" and "mine" to one or more of the five aggregates (physicality, feeling, perception, mental formations and sense consciousness). Example is grasping on a mental formation of views: "self continues after death" or "self ends after death". Whenever grasping arises, the wheel of this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" spins faster, which creates even more potential for suffering. (Please note that "grasping for views" is no different than having a belief. A belief is nothing else but "grasping on a view")
If this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" can't stop (remember, there is nobody involved in these processes), then how can these processes be stopped?
By realizing anatta. Once anatta is realized, you let go of all beliefs. Whenever all beliefs cease, the wheel of this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" stops turning, which creates no potential for suffering:

"...'after death a Tathagata exists'...
"...'after death a Tathagata does not exist'...
"...'after death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'...
"...'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'...
  does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm,
  direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding."
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away
  with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its
  origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its
  origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are
  fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its
  disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending,
  fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all
  construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making &
  obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance,
  released."

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html
In order for us to let go of all beliefs, we need wisdom. Buddhadasa's and Buddhist teachings lead us on the path towards wisdom. They cannot magically transfer their wisdom into our minds, but can show us the path how to acquire it by ourselves.
Their teachings are not to teach us "there is no experience of life after death" nor to teach us "there is experience of life after death" ... because all of these beliefs are incorrect as they are coming from craving ... grasping to "Me", "Mine", "I" (both beliefs are self views). Nor to teach us "there is nothing after death" or to teach us "there is something after death" ... because all of these beliefs are incorrect as they are coming from craving ... grasping to "Me", "Mine", "I" (all beliefs are self views). It's to teach us that all these beliefs should be left behind, laid to the ground until turned into dust and vanished:

"Because of the cessation of views, monk, uncertainty doesn't arise in
  an instructed disciple of the noble ones over the undeclared issues.
  The view-standpoint, 'The Tathagata exists after death,' the
  view-standpoint, 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death,' the
  view-standpoint, 'The Tathagata both does and doesn't exist after
  death,' the view-standpoint, 'The Tathagata neither does nor doesn't
  exist after death': The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't
  discern view, doesn't discern the origination of view, doesn't discern
  the cessation of view, doesn't discern the path of practice leading to
  the cessation of view, and so for him that view grows. He is not freed
  from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains,
  distresses, and despairs. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering
  & stress. But the instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns view,
  discerns the origination of view, discerns the cessation of view,
  discerns the path of practice leading to the cessation of view, and so
  for him that view ceases. He is freed from birth, aging, & death; from
  sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is freed, I
  tell you, from suffering & stress."

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.051.than.html
Further suttas that claim that all views should be abandoned:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.093.than.html
Once all beliefs are left behind, the wheel of "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" will stop turning and there will be no more potential for suffering, thus suffering will end.
There's nothing wrong having beliefs. On the contrary, it's normal and healthy. But we should come to the understanding that they don't lead us to the cessation of suffering.
I'll add some reflections that I made on this subject:
For the purpose of this explanation I'll replace the term "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" with the term Dhamma.
Beliefs in self and soul should be abandoned

"...'after death a Tathagata exists'...
"...'after death a Tathagata does not exist'...
"...'after death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'...
"...'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'...
  does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm,
  direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding."

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html
Whoever holds the belief that this Dhamma stops after the annihilation of the physical body, holds this belief because he believes that his self is in the physical body ... because how else could this Dhamma stop after the annihilation of the physical body, if it wasn't because his self is in the physical body?
Whoever says "Dhamma stops after the annihilation of the physical body" holds this view because he believes his self is involved in the Dhamma. How can his self be involved in the Dhamma, if everything is not self? If everything is not self, his self cannot be involved in the Dhamma. If everything is not self, his self can't be involved in anything.
Whoever holds the belief that this Dhamma continues after the annihilation of the physical body, holds this belief because he believes that his self transcends the physical body ... because how else could this Dhamma continue after the annihilation of the physical body, if it wasn't because his self is transcends the physical body?
Whoever says "Dhamma continues after the annihilation of the physical body" holds this view because he believes his self is involved in the Dhamma. How can his self be involved in the Dhamma, if everything is not self? If everything is not self, his self cannot be involved in the Dhamma. If everything is not self, his self can't be involved in anything.
Whoever holds the belief that this Dhamma continues after the annihilation of the physical body, holds this belief because he believes that his self continues after the annihilation of the physical body ... because how else could this Dhamma continue after the annihilation of the physical body, if it wasn't because his self continues after the annihilation of the physical body?
Whoever says "Dhamma continues after the annihilation of the physical body" holds this view because he believes his self transmigrates from body to body. How can his self transmigrate, if everything is not self? If everything is not self, his self cannot transmigrate. If everything is not self, his self cannot transmigrate after the annihilation of the physical body.
Beliefs in material existence and material non-existence should be abandoned

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its
  object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one
  sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right
  discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not
  occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually
  is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world
  does not occur to one."
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist':
  That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata
  teaches the Dhamma via the middle

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html
Whoever says "Dhamma continues after the annihilation of the physical body" holds this view because he believes that "something" that exists is involved in the Dhamma. How can "something" be involved in the Dhamma, if nothing exists that can be involved in the Dhamma? If nothing exists that can be involved in the Dhamma, "something" cannot be involved in the Dhamma.
Whoever says "Dhamma stops after the annihilation of the physical body" holds this view because he believes that "nothing" that is involved in the Dhamma exists. How can "nothing" be involved in the Dhamma, if something exists that is involved in the Dhamma? If something exists that is involved in the Dhamma, "something" must be involved in the Dhamma.
Whoever says "Dhamma stops after the annihilation of the physical body" holds this view because he believes that "nothing" that is involved in the Dhamma exists. How can "nothing" be involved in the Dhamma, if Dhamma is existent? If Dhamma is existent, "nothing" cannot be involved in the Dhamma, but "something" must be involved in it. If Dhamma is existent, something that does not exist must exist, thus it must be involved in the Dhamma.
Beliefs in eternalism should be abandoned

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view
  arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true &
  established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely
  by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely
  by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is
  precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as
  true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of
  mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of
  good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant,
  everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it
  is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of
  views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views.
  Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is
  not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering &
  stress.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html
Whoever holds the belief that this Dhamma continues after the annihilation of the physical body, holds this belief because he believes that his self continues after the annihilation of the physical body ... because how else could this Dhamma continue after the annihilation of the physical body, if it wasn't because his self continuing after the annihilation of the physical body?
Whoever says "Dhamma continues after the annihilation of the physical body" holds this view because he believes his self exists and transmigrates from Dhamma to Dhamma. How can his self transmigrate, if everything is not self? If everything is not self, his self cannot transmigrate. If everything is not self, there is no self that can transmigrate.
Beliefs in nihilism should be abandoned

"Bhikkhus, held by two kinds of views, some devas and human beings
  hold back and some overreach; only those with vision see.
"How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and
  disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of)
  non-being, asserting: 'In as much as this self, good sirs, when the
  body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not
  exist after death — this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is
  reality!' Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-049

"Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks,
  'There is no next world' is his wrong view. Because there actually is
  the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is no next world,'
  that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next world,
  when he speaks the statement, 'There is no next world,' that is his
  wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he says
  that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those
  arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next
  world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that
  is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in
  what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others.
  Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad
  habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong
  speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true
  Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many
  evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong
  view.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html

"Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the
  following doctrine and view: 'The self, good sir, has material form;
  it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
  and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
  with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
  point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim
  the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.
"This, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata understands. And he understands: 'These
  standpoints, thus assumed and thus misapprehended, lead to such a
  future destination, to such a state in the world beyond.' He
  understands as well what transcends this, yet even that understanding
  he does not misapprehend.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html
Wisdom
Dhamma neither stops after death nor continues. Life neither exists nor not exists. Death neither exists nor not exists. Birth neither exists nor not exists. Self neither exists nor not exists. Soul neither exists nor not exists.
Dhamma is suffering.
When the conditions are present, Dhamma arises.
When the conditions persist, Dhamma continues.
When the conditions are removed, Dhamma stops.
What are the conditions?
It's the lack of wisdom (mainly lack of anatta) (avijja) giving raise to craving (tanha) giving fuel to 'clinging, attachment' (upadana) giving raise to fabrications (samkhara) giving raise to the aggregates (khandhas) giving raise to atta, soul, eternalism, nihilism, views, beliefs, etc.
All of the above is Dhamma.
All is Dhamma.
All the Dhamma arises simultaneously, like a burning fire.
Whoever fully realized Dhamma will never deny the continuation of self after death:

"Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks,
  'There is a next world' is his right view. Because there actually is
  the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is a next world,' that
  is his right resolve. Because there actually is the next world, when
  he speaks the statement, 'There is a next world,' that is his right
  speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he says that
  'There is a next world,' he doesn't make himself an opponent to those
  arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next
  world, when he persuades another that 'There is a next world,' that is
  persuasion in what is true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is
  true Dhamma, he doesn't exalt himself or disparage others. Whatever
  bad habituation he previously had is abandoned, while good habituation
  is manifested. And this right view, right resolve, right speech,
  non-opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is true Dhamma,
  non-exaltation of self, & non-disparagement of others: These many
  skillful activities come into play, in dependence on right view.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html
Whoever fully realized Dhamma will never deny the end of self after death:

"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From
  fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From
  consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From
  name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From
  the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From
  contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a
  requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite
  condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a
  requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite
  condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging
  & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into
  play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress &
  suffering.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html
A wise person will never accept the end of self after death:

"With regard to this, a wise person considers thus: 'If there is no
  other world, then — at the break-up of the body, after death — this
  venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is the other
  world, then this venerable person — on the break-up of the body, after
  death — will reappear in the plane of deprivation, the bad
  destination, the lower realms, in hell. Even if we didn't speak of the
  other world and there weren't the true statement of those venerable
  brahmans & contemplatives, this venerable person is still criticized
  in the here-&-now by the wise as a person of bad habits & wrong view:
  one who holds to a doctrine of non-existence (natthikavādo) . If there
  really is an other world, then this venerable person has made a bad
  throw twice: in that he is criticized by the wise here-&-now, and in
  that — with the break-up of the body, after death — he will reappear
  in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in
  hell. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly
  adopted by him, covers (only) one side and leaves behind the
  possibility of the skillful.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html
Whoever fully realized Dhamma will never deny nor accept anything. He will always stay in the middle.
When verbally denying something, in reality he would not be denying it nor accepting it. When verbally accepting something, in reality he would not be accepting it nor denying it. He would always stay in the middle.

See also How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

So Beautiful.

What is written in the question is unrelated to Buddhism or is non-Buddhist. According to SN 5.10, what is written in the question is the view of Mara (Satan); the enemy of Buddha & the enemy of liberation. According to SN 23.2, it is the idea of little children. According to SN 22.85, it is an "evil supposition".
In Buddhism, 'death' ('marana') is defined as the 'death' of 'a being', where 'a being' ('satta') is simply a state of 'clinging', 'self-identification', a 'view' or 'convention', as follows:

The passing away of the various beings from the various orders of beings, their perishing, breakup, disappearance, mortality, death,
  completion of time, the breakup of the aggregates, the laying down of
  the carcass: this is called death. SN 12.2

'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one
  said to be 'a being'?" "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for
  form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is
  said to be 'a being.' "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving
  for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion,
  delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up
  there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' "Just as when boys
  or girls are playing with little sand castles: as long as they are
  not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for
  those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those
  sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. SN
  23.2

Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses: 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. Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The
  bhikkhuni Vajira knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right
  there. SN 5.10

The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
  pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend
  Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by
  the Blessed One." MN 44

In other words, 'death' ('marana') & grasping the aggregates as 'self' are the same thing, which is why grasping is called 'Mara' in many suttas, for example:

"Monk, if you cling to anything, you are in bondage to Mara.If you do not cling, you are free of the Evil One." SN 22.63

māra masculine the Evil One; the tempter; death personified.

mara adjective dying;

MN 38 clearly explains 'death' ceases while life & the mind remain conscious & alive, as follows:

On seeing a form with the eye, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides with
  mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he
  understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance
  by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without
  remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever
  feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling,
  welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in
  feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes
  cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of
  being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the
  cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  grief, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of
  suffering. MN 38

In summary, Buddhism is about suffering & the end of suffering. People or minds do not suffer over the death of a physical body. Instead, minds suffer over the death of a 'person', 'a being' or 'self', such as the death of my 'mother', 'father', 'son', 'daughter', 'wife', 'husband', 'self', etc, as follows:

Long have you experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while running around &
  wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined
  with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are
  greater than the water in the four great oceans. "Long have you
  experienced the death of a father... the death of a
  brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of
  a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to
  wealth... loss with regard to disease. SN 15.3

'Death' itself is a 'self-view'. This is why arahants do not experience 'death', as follows:

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
  be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
  conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
  a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
  all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage
  at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and
  does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might
  be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he
  die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should
  he yearn? MN 140

Dhammapada 21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead
  already.

I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Sariputta was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now, at that time
  this evil supposition had arisen to Ven. Yamaka: "As I understand the
  Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more (mental)
  effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, &
  does not exist after death." SN 22.85

The book Two Kinds of Language I recommend to beginners to understand the language of Buddhism.

The Awakened One, best of speakers,  Spoke two kinds of truths:  The conventional and the ultimate.  A third truth does not obtain.
Therein:  The speech wherewith the world converses is true  On account of its being agreed upon by the world.  The speech which
  describes what is ultimate is also true,  Through characterizing
  dhammas as they really are.
Therefore, being skilled in common usage,  False speech does not arise in the Teacher,  Who is Lord of the World,  When he speaks
  according to conventions.
(Mn. i. 95)

The book that you provided was very helpful. Thank you. I think now I understand what you're saying. If I understand correctly, suffering arises as long as there is grasping to the aggregates as 'self'. If one is arahat, grasping will stop, that's why arahats don't experience 'death'. 'Death' is 'death' of the state of 'clinging'. There is this suffering due to all this, but in reality there is no suffering, there is only this that I described.

But what if one's mind is ignorant? He will suffer over the impermanence of a state of 'clinging' onto his physical body. Help me understand this ... Suppose there is an ignorant person named X who is grasping to the aggregates as 'self' (let's call this just 'grasping'). Suppose X is dying of cancer. X is suffering very much because of grasping. For X his incoming death is hell in the here & now because of grasping. For X dying is reality in the here & now because of grasping. Suppose X will die grasping. My question is: in the described case of person X, will grasping stop after death?

Grasping does not stop after death because death itself is grasping. This is why there is rebirth after death because birth is more grasping.

However, for me, the termination of life is not the same as death. Death is a self-view while the termination of life is the ending of the aggregates. Refer to SN 22.85, which states arahants do not experience death however their aggregates end due to impermanence. Regards

I think I understand now. Correct me if I'm wrong ... 1. For an ignorant person, like in the case of person X, grasping to the aggregates as 'self' (let's call this just 'grasping') will not stop after the breakup of physical body. This is why (for an ignorant person) there is rebirth after breakup of physical body because for an ignorant person 'birth' is more grasping, thus grasping continues even after breakup of the physical body. Did I get It right?

However, for an enlightened person, grasping has already stopped, thus for him 'death' is just a self-view while the breakup of physical body is just the ending of the aggregates. Since he knows 'death' is just a self-view, he doesn't grasp onto it and doesn't suffer because of it like person X. This is why (for an enlightened person) there is no rebirth after breakup of physical body because in an enlightened person there is no grasping, thus no 'birth'/no more grasping, thus grasping in enlightened person is stopped even after physical breakup of the body. Did I get it right?

Please if I got it right, reply in the comments just "yes" to my two questions from my last two comments. If I got it wrong, please reply in the comments with "no" and please teach me where did I get it wrong. Thank you very much.

If I got it wrong, maybe I know where I got it wrong. Can you please answer my questions in my previous comments to point me in the right direction?

Ah now I see where I got it wrong! The termination of life is the ending of the aggregates. Thus, in the case of person X, grasping will stop after termination of life as there are no more aggregates onto which grasping could occur! Did I get it right now?

@beginner I think he's saying something like, "I am person X associated with these aggregates" is a self-view (and without that self-view there's no death of "self" associated with the breakup of the body). Maybe it's dubious to say that "after termination of life there are no more aggregates", because aggregates re-arise elsewhere.

@Dhammadhatu and ChrisW: I asked another related question here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23013/what-happens-to-grasping-at-self-after-termination-of-life ... Please answer there to help me shed some light on this question.


text:
Laws and rules and Dhamma
How are laws and rules in harmony with the Dhamma? How are the laws and rules we make in harmony or in conflict with the Dhamma?  How can one  best practice Dhamma while also practicing law ,enforcing law or enforcing any rules?

You can read some advice given by the Buddha in DN16 in the section entitled "Conditions of a Nation's Welfare". There are many items listed like organizing and dispersing assemblies peacefully, living according to established rules, honoring the elders, protecting women, protecting Arahats etc.
You can also read "The Edicts of King Asoka" translated by Ven. Dhammika. For e.g. this verse from The Fourteen Rock Edicts:

I have had this Dhamma edict written so that my sons and
  great-grandsons may not consider making new conquests, or that if
  military conquests are made, that they be done with forbearance and
  light punishment, or better still, that they consider making conquest
  by Dhamma only, for that bears fruit in this world and the next. May
  all their intense devotion be given to this which has a result in this
  world and the next.

Regarding enforcing laws, King Asoka's Kalinga Rock Edicts state:

Beloved-of-the-Gods says that the Mahamatras of Tosali who are judicial officers in the city are to be told this: I wish to see that
  everything I consider to be proper is carried out in the right way.
  And I consider instructing you to be the best way of accomplishing
  this. I have placed you over many thousands of people that you may win
  the people's affection.
All men are my children. What I desire for my own children, and I desire their welfare and happiness both in this world and the next,
  that I desire for all men. You do not understand to what extent I
  desire this, and if some of you do understand, you do not understand
  the full extent of my desire.
You must attend to this matter. While being completely law-abiding,
  some people are imprisoned, treated harshly and even killed without
  cause so that many people suffer. Therefore your aim should be to
  act with impartiality. It is because of these things — envy, anger,
  cruelty, hate, indifference, laziness or tiredness — that such a thing
  does not happen. Therefore your aim should be: "May these things not
  be in me." And the root of this is non-anger and patience. Those who
  are bored with the administration of justice will not be promoted;
  (those who are not) will move upwards and be promoted. Whoever among
  you understands this should say to his colleagues: "See that you do
  your duty properly. Such and such are Beloved-of-the-Gods'
  instructions." Great fruit will result from doing your duty, while
  failing in it will result in gaining neither heaven nor the king's
  pleasure. Failure in duty on your part will not please me. But done
  properly, it will win you heaven and you will be discharging your
  debts to me. ....
This edict has been written for the following purpose: that the judicial officers of the city may strive to do their duty and that the
  people under them might not suffer unjust imprisonment or harsh
  treatment. To achieve this, I will send out Mahamatras every five
  years who are not harsh or cruel, but who are merciful and who can
  ascertain if the judicial officers have understood my purpose and are
  acting according to my instructions. Similarly, from Ujjayini, the
  prince will send similar persons with the same purpose without
  allowing three years to elapse. Likewise from Takhasila also. When
  these Mahamatras go on tours of inspection each year, then without
  neglecting their normal duties, they will ascertain if judicial
  officers are acting according to the king's instructions.

King Asoka's Seven Pillar Edicts talk about the hearing of petitions and the administration of justice:

Beloved-of-the-Gods speaks thus: This Dhamma edict was written
  twenty-six years after my coronation. My Rajjukas are working among
  the people, among many hundreds of thousands of people. The hearing of
  petitions and the administration of justice has been left to them so
  that they can do their duties confidently and fearlessly and so that
  they can work for the welfare, happiness and benefit of the people in
  the country. But they should remember what causes happiness and
  sorrow, and being themselves devoted to Dhamma, they should encourage
  the people in the country (to do the same), that they may attain
  happiness in this world and the next. These Rajjukas are eager to
  serve me. They also obey other officers who know my desires, who
  instruct the Rajjukas so that they can please me. Just as a person
  feels confident having entrusted his child to an expert nurse
  thinking: "The nurse will keep my child well," even so, the Rajjukas
  have been appointed by me for the welfare and happiness of the people
  in the country.
The hearing of petitions and the administration of justice have been
  left to the Rajjukas so that they can do their duties unperturbed,
  fearlessly and confidently. It is my desire that there should be
  uniformity in law and uniformity in sentencing. I even go this far, to
  grant a three-day stay for those in prison who have been tried and
  sentenced to death. During this time their relatives can make appeals
  to have the prisoners' lives spared. If there is none to appeal on
  their behalf, the prisoners can give gifts in order to make merit for
  the next world, or observe fasts. Indeed, it is my wish that in this
  way, even if a prisoner's time is limited, he can prepare for the next
  world, and that people's Dhamma practice, self-control and generosity
  may grow.

Wisdom over Justice or Justice vs. Skillfulness gives answers to possible understand.