text:
Various types of death
In this answer, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu wrote about various types of death (quoted below).

Where can I find references to and more info on the various types of death that is mentioned - khaṇika-maraṇa, sammuti-maraṇa and samuccheda-maraṇa? It can be from the Pali Canon or other sources.
Are there also other types of death? According to this source, there is also paramattha-maraṇa (ultimate death).
Does sammuti-maraṇa refer to physical death? This source calls it "conventional death".

Any other additional info or explanation is welcomed.

The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as
  "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against
  orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings,
  it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not
  rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old.
... In this
  life, there is what is called khaṇika-maraṇa - death of a moment.
  Each momentary experience is born and dies, never to arise again. At
  the moment of conceptual death (sammuti-maraṇa), this process of
  momentary birth and death continues unimpeded unless one has
  experienced "death by cutting off" (samuccheda-maraṇa) - i.e. of the
  defilements (q.v. Vism VIII.167) - in which case there is no further
  arising.
To put it succinctly, physical death isn't even real according to
  early Buddhism; it is a concept based on the artificial construct of a
  "being" who is "born".
(And in this comment:) New birth is related to old birth, but nothing
  is ever reborn.

These three types of death are commonly referred to by the Theravada commentaries (e.g. AN-a 1.18 aparāccharāsaṅghātavaggavaṇṇanā). A description of them is found in the Vibhaṅga commentary:

Tattha ‘khaṇikamaraṇaṃ’ nāma pavatte rūpārūpadhammānaṃ bhedo. ‘Tisso mato, phusso mato’ti idaṃ ‘sammutimaraṇaṃ’ nāma. Khīṇāsavassa appaṭisandhikā kālakiriyā ‘samucchedamaraṇaṃ’ nāma.

I wouldn't be surprised if other traditions talked about other types of death, but these are the types of death recognized by the orthodox Theravada commentaries.
In the quote above, sammutimaraṇa refers to when we say "Tissa died." or "Phussa died." (Tissa and Phussa are just common Pali names).

Welcome back, Bhante!


text:
Difference between abiding nirvana and non-abiding nirvana?
In Mahayana Buddhism, what is the difference between abiding nirvana and non-abiding nirvana?
Are there official Sanskrit terms for "abiding nirvana" and "non-abiding nirvana"? What are they?
When a Buddha has achieved non-abiding nirvana, "his enlightened activities are uninterrupted". What does this mean?
This question is based on this answer:

A Hinayana arhat abandoned afflictive obscurations by way of realizing
  emptiness, but has not abandoned knowledge obscuration. He has achieved
  abiding nirvana. Therefore, although they are free from the conception
  of true existence, and from true suffering, they are not free from the
  imprints of ignorance (i.e. knowledge obscurations). We say that it is
  like removing garlic from a container: the smell will still be there.
  So, because they still have the imprints of ignorance, (1) they are
  not free from the appearance of true existence, and (2) they are
  reborn with a mental body, due to the imprints of ignorance (in our
  case, we are reborn to due karma and afflictions).
A bodhisattva is a person who generated effortless bodhicitta (the
  wish to achieve enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings).
  Since effortless bodhicitta is the entry gate to the Mahayana path, he
  entered the Mahayana small path of accumulation. When he cultivates
  wisdom, it is conjoined with emptiness and that makes his mind vast
  (due to bodhicitta) and profound (due to realizing emptiness). He
  wishes not to abide in individual liberation (abiding nirvana) but to
  be free from the extreme of peace (abiding nirvana) as well as from
  samsara. Therefore, he wishes to achieve non-abiding nirvana, which is
  the attainment of a buddha.
A Buddha abandoned both afflictive and knowledge obscuration, having
  generated the path perfection of wisdom (the wisdom of emptiness
  conjoined with bodhicitta). In his continuum, wisdom and bodhicitta
  are the same mind: the omniscient mind of a buddha that realizes all
  objects of knowledge directly, past present and future, in an
  unmistaken way, etc. He achieved non-abiding nirvana, abiding neither
  in samsara nor in individual liberation. His enlightened activities
  are uninterrupted.

Can you explain more clearly why the answer you cited does not satisfy your first question or remains unclear to you? In theory, that answer said it all -- abiding Nirvana is the realization of an Arhat; non-abiding Nirvana is what a Buddha achieves. The question about "his enlightened activities are uninterrupted",  however, seems to be new and worthy of an answer. I don't have time for a proper answer, but there is quite a bit of material from this search

Non-abiding Nirvana is a standard Mahayana doctrine, described as non-abiding in contrast with (Hinayana's) Nirvana which is considered abiding.
(As always, I have to remind everyone that Theravada is NOT equivalent to Hinayana. Hinayana refers to a primitive level of understanding of Dharma. There are Mahayana practitioners still on Hinayana levels; There are Theravada practitioners on Mahayana level.)
In Hinayana thinking, beginner thinking, we imagine Nirvana as some state we achieve or some place we enter ONCE AND FOREVER. In Hinayana-level thinking, first you get rid of coarse turbulence in your life, then you quit society and spend most of your time in meditation, then you basically give up worries about all kinds of things, then you go through Jhanas, so in the end you achieve this 100% peaceful 100% quiet 100% perfect mind - with no conflict, no dukkha whatsoever, and you enter and dwell in that state. This is the abiding nirvana. Or, I should say, it would be the abiding nirvana if it existed. Because it doesn't exist, it's just a mistaken fantasy.
In Hinayana thinking, you can't, for example, be in society, have job, family etc. - and be in Nirvana. Can't happen, because regular life creates too many disturbances, too many conflicts and issues. On this level of understanding, you despise disturbances, conflicts, and issues - because they disturb your peace, they break your attempts at stabilizing your mind and attaining some semblance of Nirvana. You keep craving a perfect peace, perfect suchness - which is how you imagine Nirvana to be. This imaginary perfect peace is the abiding nirvana.
In contrast to that, on Mahayana level, we achieve the real Nirvana that the Buddha taught (in Pali Canon, too!) - the unconditional, non-abiding Nirvana. Non-abiding Nirvana means that we do not abide, do not dwell, in any single position or state of mind. We no longer get disturbed by the circumstances because of non-craving and non-attachment. We do not feel that life interferes with our practice or interferes with our peace, because life IS peace, life IS nirvana - if you are not attached to a particular shape or  position.
In the progression of jhanas, the non-abiding Nirvana is attained as the last step, through transcending the very duality of sukkha/dukkha, the very duality of suchness/wrongness. By this time, there is no separation between Nirvana and Samsara, no limits to suchness, all conceptual dualities are transcended. You have no position, no shape, nothing to regret - you can't be pinned down.
Nothing can be said about anything at this point, because all descriptions require a base for assertion, but there is no such base anymore. Everything is... just is. IS.
But life goes on. And this is the non-abiding Nirvana.

This is a very interesting excerpt. Unfortunately I can not answer your question about the Sanskrit terms, but I hope what I have written is still helpful to your understanding of the difference between these two states.
Once Nirvana is reached, as described above, there is an instantaneous liberation of the conception of existence, and true (or I would call "fundamental") suffering. That being said, although Nirvana is known, there are still habits and experiences that arise based off ignorance. This is because the habits of the illusory self continue to appear until the Truth of Nirvana becomes incorporated into the experience of the illusory self.
This state of being awakened, where the illusory self that is appearing has not fully digested and processed the understandings Nirvana brings, is what they are describing as "abiding nirvana". It is called abiding, because it feels as if the default existence is still the illusory self, and it takes a conscious effort to "abide" in Nirvana. This ability is there at any time because you are enlightened.
Now, non-abiding Nirvana, is the state that occurs after all ignorance and habit is removed from the illusory self's behaviors and understandings. In this state, the default existence is no longer the illusory self and it no longer feels like you need to put effort into abiding in Nirvana. From here, the default perspective of your existence is one that is Nirvana first, and all ignorance has been fully dissipated through true understanding.
An Arahant who is in the "abiding" stage is capable of feeling things such as anger, frustration, and desire. Although these things only arise out of habit, and when they do arise, they quickly are dissipated for the Truth is known.
An Arahant who is in the "non-abiding" stage no longer observes the arising of things like anger, frustration, and desire. This is because the illusory self has now fully embodied the teachings of the Buddha. Once this has occurred, there is nothing left to be done.
The statement "his enlightened activities are uninterrupted" are referring to the wavering back and forth between illusion and Nirvana. When enlightened activities are uninterrupted, you are continuously resting as Nirvana, and no content that appears within the story of the illusory self is capable of pulling your attention back into "embodying" the illusory self. This state of non-abiding is a gradual transition that occurs over time, as the mind processes the information it can no longer deny after observing the Truth.
I hope these definitions where clear and helpful in your understanding of the difference. I wish you nothing but love and pray you reach liberation soon.

"Omniscience has regularly been ascribed to the Buddha
in the different Buddhist traditions. An examination of the
early discourses found in the Påli Nikåyas and the Chinese
Ógamas, however, suggests a different perspective.
The term used in the Påli Nikåyas to qualify someone as
omniscient is sabbaññu, with its counterpart in the Chinese
Ógamas in the expression 一切知, (yi qie zhi). The term
sabbaññu and its equivalent 一切知 are made up of two parts:
sabba or 一切, “all”, and ñåˆa or 知, “knowledge”, just as the
English term omniscience derives from the Latin words omnis,
“all”, and scientia, “knowledge”. In the thought world of the
early discourses, such omniscience denotes the ability to
continuously and uninterruptedly have complete and infinite
knowledge regarding any event, such as is attributed by
theistic religions to their god(s). An instance where such
infinite and total knowledge is attributed to the god
Mahåbrahmå can be found in the Påli and Chinese versions of
the Kevaddha Sutta, according to which other gods in the
Brahmå realm believed that there is nothing Mahåbrahmå does
not see or know.
The same discourse also depicts the early
Buddhist attitude to such claims, as the Påli and Chinese
versions agree in describing how Mahåbrahmå reacted when
faced with a question posed by an inquisitive monk. In order to
avoid losing face in front of the other gods, Mahåbrahmå gave
evasive replies, until finally he had to admit that he did not
know an answer, and that the question should better be put to
the Buddha, who would be able to solve it."
:from: "The Buddha and Omniscience by Anålayo∗
- https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/buddha-omniscience.pdf
This is an interesting problem, but important because it helps us to understand why in some cases, enlightened teachers are known for unenlightened views. They themselves are free, but they don't have something akin to omniscient knowledge (I mean that in a relative way) as Buddhas do. Buddhas teach Dharma from full recollection of the entirety of incarnations, so every little detail of knowledge has been worked through in their past. So for example, a Zen Master in Japan might has realized enlightenment, but being ignorant due to his past of only seeing things in a Japanese way, might voice his support for seeing the Emperor as Universal or World Monarch for all of Asia.
"Victoria has followed up his Zen at War with more research. He has directed attention to Yasutani's Zen Master Dogen and the Shushogi (Treatise on Practice and Enlightenment), published in 1943. This book is "a rallying cry for the unity of Asia under Japanese hegemony":
Annihilating the treachery of the United States and Britain and establishing the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere is the only way to save the one billion people of Asia so that they can, with peace of mind, proceed on their respective paths. Furthermore, it is only natural that this will contribute to the construction of a new world order, exorcising evil spirits from the world and leading to the realization of eternal peace and happiness for all humanity. I believe this is truly the critically important mission to be accomplished by our great Japanese empire.
In fact, it must be said that in accomplishing this very important national mission the most important and fundamental factor is the power of spiritual culture."
-from:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakuun_Yasutani

I've always assumed that abiding Nirvana is, well, abiding, in that we are fully aware and awake and nothing can change this. Non-abiding Nirvana would be a glimpse or a taste but not a settled state. The former would be the goal.
This view is not shared by all, I note, so it's just my opinion.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can Vipassana dissolve psychosis?
I did 2 10 day Goenka Vipassana courses. And years later developed adult onset psychosis,
I have not maintained Vipassana practice. Just had a physical and it appears that otherwise I’m relatively healthy if that can be said. I can read without interference. It appears that off and on rhythmic repetitive simple worded voices, sounds and difficulty sleeping might be labeled metaphysical “spiritual emergency.” Difficult to label it as “spiritual.” Maybe more like warfare.
Needless to say, long term the above has a tendency to occlude what is known in secular society as normal function. Can Vipassana dissolve psychosis?

You would have to be careful, and some retreats might not accept you due to liability concerns. See the linked article from this question: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/30514/14663

Google defines psychosis as

A mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality.

Causes:

Psychosis may occur as a result of a psychiatric illness like schizophrenia. In other instances, it may be caused by a health condition, medications, or drug use.

Since what you suffer from sounds more like the temporary kind, I would say there's a good chance that vipassana meditation could help you. Vipassana means to see clearly the nature of reality, and it is effected by cultivating sati, the main characteristic of which is confronting (abhimukha) reality. If you can manage that, I'd say you would be effectively counteracting the dissociation involved in psychosis.
That being said, I've been reading a lot lately about Goenka-based retreats that seems to suggest they are quite intense. I don't practice his technique myself, so I would just like to say that there are many ways to practice vipassana, some maybe more suitable for dealing with your condition than others. Good luck :)

The impression is you should avoid vipassana if past meditation retreats lead to your mind becoming unbalanced. Only relatively small proportion of participants attain something significant from meditation. Probably practising the five precepts, metta meditation, recollection of the love & compassion of the Buddhas and things like this is best for you.

The 2 Vipassana retreats had nothing to do with what happened years later. The retreats were mentioned only to say that had some experience with that method.

Thank you Vastation. I think there not much specific advice that can be given on the internet. It you have some doubts about mental health & meditation, I think it is best to speak in person to a monk, a meditation teacher and/or a psychologist. I think the type of advice you are seeking is most appropriately received in person from a person who gets to know you. Kind regards. DD

Yup, you’re absolutely correct. Inappropriate direct question but I thought I’d throw it out there anyway. Meta is in no way a bad option. I have no doubts ab’t meditation & mental health. The former is only beneficial regarding the latter. And meditation can be done despite or bc all the nonsense.

@DD Genuine vipassana is when samadhi is developed, isn't it? It is with samadhi that the mind is still and penetrates the four noble truths, wasn't it?

I agree Val. The eightfold path emphasises the development of samadhi.

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


text:
Buddhadasa and the continuity of suffering beyond physical death, without rebirth
I read "Anatta and Rebirth" by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (let's call this explanation B) and I also read similar explanations by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu from this answer, this comment and this answer (let's call this explanation Y).
First I need to make some definitions and assumptions, before asking my questions:

The birth and death of a moment in Y is equivalent to the birth and death of selfhood in B i.e. a moment of selfhood.
The definition of birth (jati) and existence (bhava) comes from SN 12.2, while the definition of being (satta) comes from SN 5.10.
Sammuti-marana or conventional death or conceptual death is equivalent to the event of physical death (according to this answer).
"At the moment of conceptual death, this process of momentary birth and death continues unimpeded unless one has experienced 'death by cutting off'" in Y is what I will call "continuity of suffering beyond physical death" (that is, without rebirth).
The fact that the Buddha taught that there is no rebirth whatsoever is proven in the story of Bhikkhu Sati in MN 38, where Sati describes his understanding of rebirth, "it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another" and consciousness as "it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions". This is a kind of self view associating consciousness and self.
The fact that the Buddha taught that suffering can continue beyond physical death is proven in many suttas: MN 4 ("with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared"), SN 15.3 (ocean of tears), SN 44.9, Dhp 400 (last body), MN 57, SN 42.3, DN 2, Dhp 153-154 and many more.
Explanation Y supports both #5 and #6 above.
Explanation B supports #5 above, but does not explicitly reject #6 above.
There are some Buddhists (sometimes describing themselves as Secular Buddhists) who reject rebirth and also reject continuity of suffering beyond physical death. They claim to reconcile Buddhism with science using explanation B, and say that any kind of continuity beyond physical death is superstition.
Those who support (Bhikkhu Sati's version of) rebirth are eternalists, while those who reject continuity of suffering beyond physical death are annihilationists according to DN 1 and SN 12.17. Both are false views.

Questions:

Am I right to say that Buddhadasa Bhikkhu in "Anatta and Rebirth" (explanation B), while correctly rejecting rebirth, did not explicitly reject the continuity of suffering beyond physical death?
Are there any other sources, from speeches or writings of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, that prove that he had explicitly rejected the continuity of suffering beyond physical death?
Am I right to say that those who support (Bhikkhu Sati's version of) rebirth are eternalists, while those who reject continuity of suffering beyond physical death are annihilationists according to DN 1 and SN 12.17?

you may not like the question which i have typically worded in a convoluted way

@ChrisW this is another one of "here's my analysis, is this right?" kind of questions. In my opinion, these are beyond the site's format. What do you think?

@AndreiVolkov In principle the kind of question may be on-topic. "Am I right in thinking X means Y? What about Z then, is Z compatible with X?" In practice this particular question is hard to take in: it references 3 answers, makes 10 claims, references a dozen suttas, and compares views from three source (i.e. B and Y and S), -- before it even asks any question -- so it's not at all easy to read, it's arguably "unclear what you're asking", too much detail.

And it's not clear to me why the assumptions exist. Are you asking, "I'm assuming this but if I'm wrong please tell me"? Or "I'm assuming this so take these assumptions as true when you answer"?

Because I find the question hard to follow I can't tell whether either of the existing answers are on-topic. I guess that Mishu's is (answering the question) though it may have some unnecessary extra asides, and that Dhammadhatu's isn't (and is as he writes only repeating what he usually posts).

"Unnecessary extra asides" are necessary due to the nature of audiences in this forum (or English Buddhist community), though I also felt myself rapping like an old granny too by writing the extras. I've hinted the extras in my beginning sentence. If the OP tag Pali or Theravada I would skip (OP asked a new question to procure solely Theravada answer.) I was answering the fundamental arguement of "rebirth" by its root cause, only this way it could procure a holistic answer. It is necessary to examine the doctrine of Theravada "6 conciousness(es)" how it leads to questioning "rebirth" @ChrisW

I don't know Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nor Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu so I can't speak to their views.
As for this:

"The fact that the Buddha taught that there is no rebirth whatsoever
is proven in the story of Bhikkhu Sati in MN 38, where Sati describes
his understanding of rebirth, "it is this same consciousness that runs
and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another" and
consciousness as "it is that which speaks and feels and experiences
here and there the result of good and bad actions". This is a kind of
self view associating consciousness and self."

I do not think this is a correct assumption and the conclusion does not follow from the evidence. Just because Bhikkhu Sati was faulted for speaking of rebirth in a certain way it doesn't follow that everyone is so faulted for speaking of rebirth in any way.
The story of Bhikkhu Sati (MN 38) and the story of Bhikkhu Yamaka (SN 22.85) offer a very revealing contrast and when taken together refute this assumption.
Both Bhikkhu Sati and Bhikkhu Yamaka had the false view of the hypostatic existence of the self (aka that the self is "real and actual"). The former identified the self with "the same consciousness" existing in life after life. This is indeed an eternalistic view and incorrect. The latter identified the self with "the body" and asserted that with its' break up, the self ends. This is indeed an annihilationist view and incorrect.
The thing that links both of these is the appearance and belief in a real and actual self. That is why they were rebuked. It is not appropriate to regard the self as possessing or consisting of the aggregates nor as existing under its own power separate from the aggregates.

"“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling,
perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as
the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as one
who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without
volitional formations, without consciousness?”—“No, friend.”"
“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and
actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I
understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
the body and does not exist after death’?”
SN 22.85

Now some people have taken this teaching and come to the wrong conclusion that it is incorrect to assert that the self exists or to speak of the self at all. However, we know this is just wrong. The Buddha often spoke of people as existing and also used normal everyday language. He used the words "I" and "mine" and "person" and "self" and used proper names all the time. This is not controversial because it is widely understood that the Buddha did so when speaking conventionally and was faultless since he had completely gone beyond the appearance or belief in hypostatic existence (aka real and actual).
The reason your assumption is wrong is because you are ruling out that it is possible to speak of rebirth in exactly that way: by speaking conventionally and faultlessly without any appearance or belief in hypostatic existence. Indeed, the Buddha spoke often of rebirth just like this.
Just as it is possible to speak faultlessly about persons in this life, it is possible to speak faultlessly about rebirth of those persons in future lives and in past lives. The fault only entails when the speech is presumed upon the basis of the appearance and belief in hypostatic existence. That fault is equal in severity and scope whether an ignorant one is speaking of this life, past lives or future lives.
Just as we can speak faultlessly of persons existing in this very life even though they are not "real and actual" we can speak of persons existing in future or past lives even though they are not "real and actual."
Indeed we must. Why? Because it is so! Persons and selves exist in this very life and they also exist in past and future lives. The Buddha only spoke the truth.
For those who don't hold to this I've asked this question so I can understand how they've arrived at the idea that speaking of rebirth is never faultless, but speaking of persons in this life can be.

I'll complement by adding that It's like speaking about santa clause to a child, doesn't mean that you believe it's an actual santa claus at the mall even tho a child might grasp what is there with wrong view thinking it is santa claus from the north pole. It just so happens that this samsara is entirely constructed around the idea of a self and therefore speaking in those terms is entirely necessary to make sense of that delusion which is samsara.

Sentient beings believe in the "real and actual" existence of things and the Buddha spoke to them, but never validated this belief with his speech.

Yes, they do not only believe it but it is how they understand it. If one attempted to speak in other terms negating it's existence it wouldn't make sense to them or be overly complicated, dhamma needs to be taught step-by-step. I don't even think there is a way to make a person see the irrationality of his delusion without having a good grasp on it and to me this is what the Buddha does, he is like a psychiatrist guiding people towards abandoning wrong views and he uses their own understanding, perception & conception of delusion to do it.

If a question raised by a Theravadin, normally I don't bother. However, since I learnt the Dharma from Chinese Tripitaka, with Mahayana doctrines the main teaching while basic doctrines listed in the Agamas, I have the knowledge to understand Theravadin doctrines as well. For Pali Canon is roughly equivalent to the Agamas. In this respect I think I can contribute to this question.
I didn't read Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's Anatta and Rebirth, consciously choose to spend time reading the most superior writings, for life is short, time is pricey. I've read Bhikkhu Yuttadhammo's answer by accident, and for writing this post I read his comment and another answer linked by OP, briefly. Therefore, my answer should just be regarded as some highlights to help solving questioned topics.

Explanation Y supports both #5 and #6 above.

No. My reading OP's links of Y doesn't support 5, nor 6.
Y rejecting 6 in this writing:

There isn't in fact any such thing as rebirth, in ultimate reality...
Rebirth is a concept used to describe the change between one
artificial framework of experiences (e.g. a human life) to another.

In another answer, Y clearly stated he rejected "rebirth", he accepted "birth" only. Rejecting 5 in this answer:

The ultimate reality is that the mind simply arises and ceases at the
last moment of life and then a new mind arises at the first moment of
rebirth based on the last one, very similar to as has been occurring
throughout one's life, except this time there is no old physical
phenomena for it to be based on, so it is based solely on one's final
state of mind in the last life.

However, it seemed Y is contradicting himself, quite confusing wordings. For on one hand he stated there is only "birth", no "rebirth", on the other he said the new mind is based on the last one.
If you plant a new tree, does it based on the last tree to plant? No, if you based on the last it's called grafting plant - joining two or more into one plant. Even planting a new tree, you need the seeds from the old tree, therefore there isn't any "new mind" can arise independently, as Y wishes. Using the word "birth" or "rebirth" doesn't give Y any edge to defend his view.
Y further confused his concept with this wordings:

Every experience that is made up of the five aggregates arises and
ceases without remainder.

This is a questionable explanation, perhaps Bhikkhu Yuttadhammo is limited by language to explain his meaning. Simply, memory remains, isn't it? Also the experience of previous conditions the response of next experience, and the effect of previous also affects the successive experience. This can be proven in daily life, by common sense.

OP's question 1 & 2:
No. Bhikkhu Buddhadasa (wrongly) rejected the continuity of suffering beyond physical death. I procured his view from my "scanning", and reading titles, his article(s) on rejecting the existence of heaven and hell is the proof.
And perhaps likely B was bearing the fruit of his own incorrect understanding that led many followers astray. I read some articles on the internet about B's final moments. He suffered extreme pain, lost consciousness; against his last wish to abandon medical means to continue his life, he was put to surgery, and many different treatments that only gave him severe pain, without reviving or relieving him from his suffering state.
It made me recall what I learnt from other Sutras, that a being reappeared in hell doesn't take physical birth, just manifested as a body-less (consciousness) being. In this sense you can say it not a "rebirth", for it directly appears in another realm. Because it doesn't have physical property, it can't die, no matter how terrible the suffering or mutilations it went through millions times. (One can understand this by inferring to the suffering or mutilation happened in dream, in dream there is no physical body too.) Usually one's most strong belief, or defilement, will manifest as the most prominent scenario.
OP's question 3:
I suspected Bhikkhu Sati is limited by the terminologies he could choose from the Pali Canon, therefore he used the confusing word "consciousness". I infer he was trying to explain the Theravadin doctrine of no-Self in terms of Five Aggregates and the consciousness to give proper explanation of how rebirth should be understood/ could happen. Good try, but unfortunately short of resources to support him in the Pali Canon.

Instead of entangling in the arguments of the two Theravadin Bhikkhus for trying to understand the doctrine of rebirth and no-Self, here I would like to contribute by giving resources from the Chinese Tripitaka. From my study, Mahayana (excl. Tibetan) is the complete teaching of the Buddha. Rebirth should be understood with reference to the Alaya-vijana; and no-Self should be understood, in particular, with the Mano-vijana. We understood Alaya, or Tathagatagarbha, is the essence that doesn't birth, nor die. It never arises, nor ceases. (I think Bhikkhu Yuttadhammo was trying the words "ultimate reality" but his lack of Mahayana resources made him confusing in his understanding). And this 8th consciousness is not the Self, because a Self by definition has attributes, cannot be universal. It is by this meaning the no-Self (Anatman, Pali: Anatta) is realized. However, it is neither not the Self, for every sentient has the Alaya, it is by this definition Alaya conjoined with Mano-vijana to create the conventional self - the "I, me, mine". This two vijanas will not be cut off when physical death happened.
Since this forum the majority are Theravadins, I felt it is futile to let most readers understand therefore I will not give further explanation.
It is incorrect to dilute the doctrine of no-Self replaced it with the term "self-view". It is important to understand that though in Ultimate it is no-Self, there is "me-self" for any unenlightened being. It is this false "me-self" that traversing in death-rebirth. Those who wanted to reject rebirth by the doctrine of no-Self, they should ask themselves, if they cut their fingers do they feel the pain? If they do, then they are far away from getting rid of this "me-self". (Because if an entity is just a pile of Five Aggregates, it won't feel; if it is consciousness, since the Theravadin consciousness is momentarily mind-contiuum, it will not feel pain either. How can a moment pass information to another moment? Isn't the time of cut and pain occurred in two different moments? If they occurred in same moment, it will be there is no cut but there is pain, or there is pain but there is no cut, isn't it?) They will be reborn after physical death, no matter they accept it or not. It is definite, guaranteed. Another inference, simply, by universal law, if a thing doesn't have a beginning it will not have an end. Can anyone recall when the moment the notion of "I" begins?

Now let's deal with why Theravadin doctrine so easily interpreted by sincere followers to reject rebirth. My assertion is, the main reason that Theravadin doctrine teaches the Five Aggregates no-Self, the consciousness are momentarily continuum also no-Self. Now problem, what gives to keep the continuity of a being by the time of death? They conclude the no-Self should be the final truth therefore rebirth is a myth, or a mean simply to strengthen morality, or to appease the ancient Indian audiences... etc. etc. I do sympathize these followers and reckon their sincerity in following the doctrines. Though they wrongly interpret the literal word "rebirth" of the Buddha due to their lack of comprehensive resources. If they have the minds for studying Mahayana Sutras, their questions stirred up by the conflict of no-Self with rebirth will be answered by themselves satisfactorily.

The above infers this: it is unfortunate many taken and conditioned by the views invented by those scholar-Buddhists, advocating the so-called "Early Buddhist Text" or "Early Buddhism". These views never appear until late 200 years, when the world was taken by colonialism. Bhikkhu Buddhadasa (he had correspondences with some associated with Anagarika Dharmapala) was one of those suspected groomed (secretly) by the Theosophical Society that established the Southern Church (Theravada School) in South East Asia during colonization of Sri Lanka. The Northern Church was established based on the Tibetan doctrines. And the Sri Lankan Bhikkhu Anagarika Dharmapala, after receiving the helps from the Theosophical Society to re-establish the Sanghas, he had chosen to break with them before he submitted to their purpose of creating a "universal religion", combining Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism... etc. into one religion. Brave fellow!
As I'd been confused by many statements of those who disparaging Mahayana Sutras when I first joint this forum, I did quite in depth studies and readings to clarify what really is the truth. Unlike some Sri Lankan who's quite patriotic, I have no difficulty of taking any school as my personal preference and reference, as long as it is the Buddha's authentic teaching, or even taken more than one. But my researches lead me learnt the above facts regarding how Buddhism was shaped in recent 200 years.
In fact, it is with plenty evidences and references the Mahayana Sutras in Chinese Tripitaka are authentic Buddha's own words. These Mahayana Sutras, together with the Four Agamas, were written down at the gathering in the Cave of Seven Leaves after Buddha entered Nirvana, called the 1st Buddhist Council. The teachings, consisted the 12 sections of Sutras with large portion are Mahayana Sutras, were written on plain cloth to be kept and transmitted, instead of the commonly and widely spread Theravadin saying - by oral recitation. The more interesting fact is, the original Sri Lankan School were Mahayanist, the Sthaviravāda were Mahayanist (who Theravadins claimed and associated to be their inheritor). Interested readers may read the details, records, and quotes of evidences regarding the 500 Arhats collecting the teachings, the 1st Buddhist Council.
By saying the above I don't mean Pali Canon unauthentic, it is good enough for teaching the basic doctrines, and very suitable for beginners, if they can interpret it correctly. I only want to give confidence to those who ready to receive the Mahayana teachings, that Mahayana Sutras are Buddha's own words. The other point I want to make is, without getting the complete teaching of the Buddha, particularly the doctrines on Alaya and Tathagatagarbha, it is almost impossible to understand the doctrine of no-Self and rebirth, in its comprehensiveness. From my study and understanding, the teaching of Alaya and Tathagatagarbha has already mentioned in the Agamas. But it is not elaborating as so profoundly in the Mahayana Sutras.
To conclude, rebirth is a fact for unenlightened sentient. It can only be rid off when enlightened. Enlightened is one realized no-Self. One realized no-Self is an Arhat. An Arhat has no rebirth. In Ultimate, there is no birth-death, i.e., no rebirth, Ultimate is the Alaya and Tathagatagarbha. The Chán School (Jap: Zen) may put aside or play down the doctrine of rebirth, for they focus on realizing the Tathagatagarbha, the self-Nature.

If a person injures his physical brain or has brain surgery, he may have insomnia (memory loss) and/or changes in his personality and tendencies. There are many such medical examples. Doesn't this imply that memory and impressions of this life is stored in the physical nervous system, instead of a metaphysical storehouse consciousness? Even Theravada Abhidhamma has a similar concept of bhavanga and some people give it a storehouse function but some others don't, as I have seen

Likewise, there are also medical case that someone injured their brain, but they don't suffer from memory loss. If memory are stored in brain, how can they keep this data from dispatched? Another example, a computer can have it's monitor broken with the display of data truncated, but if you insert a working monitor it will just display the data as usual. There are also cases someone has brain damage and lost memory but later recovered, how do you explain? I haven't learnt concept of bhavanga in detail, but Buddhaghosa is a Mahayanist, read the historical facts.

@Mishu, excuse my word choice, but it's ignorant from you to believe that memory is elsewhere stored than in the brain. Obviously if there was an injury and memory wasn't affected then it is due to the fact that certain parts were damaged and others were not. This is no rocket science. But I believe that brain injuries are often connected with memory loss, (sometimes more severely than at other times) since memory is stored in the limbic system, in particular in the Hippocampi.

No worries @Val :). I think it is also ignorant from you to believe that memory is stored only in the brain. For example, medical case has someone cut off part of brain causing him lost the knowledge of language, say, his can't write English essay - the part of brain has memory of language by your assertion. After treatment and recovery, this patient suddenly regain the ability to write English essay, as before. Where is this memory coming from? The brain contained it - in your assertion, has already been cut off

To Mishu: The brain can have backup copies just as your computer harddisk can have backup copies. As the brain heals from injuries, it can connect the backup copies. To Val: Actually, in all schools of Buddhism, the mind is not a subset of the physical body. Rather, the mind and the body can influence each other. They are not completely independent of each other. So I guess not everything is inside the brain, yet not everything is outside the brain either.

@Mishu米殊 This answer from Jayarava has some info on both bhavanga and alaya-vijnana, perhaps even linking the two concepts. I also have the same impression as Jayarava that alaya-vijnana sounds very similar to the Hindu Atman concepts of how the soul carries its past impressions with it. Of course, I also don't understand it very well, so I cannot comment.

"The brain can have backup copies..." - is this your assumption, ruben 2020? In this case I don't want to bother to argue an assumption. How many copies a brain make the backup(s), one, two, three, how do you know? What gives the quota of how it works the backup versions? Etc. etc... :)

Not only can the mind influence the body (& vice versa), it actually does! This is why 'faking behaviour' while rehearsing new thoughts is effective. Also, this is also why lying down makes one sleepy which in turn promote thoughts that are concerning sleeping. Likewise with standing up in the morning: If one stands up while saying 'it's hard to tolerate but worth it to bear the pain of standing up' then behaviour influences thinking and the thinking is inline with behaviour and reality because there is a realistic 'struggle component', 'worth it component', as well as 'tolerating component'.

Thanks ruben 2020, I may read the link when I have time. But I know many Theravadins wanted to argue there is concept of Alaya by their Abhidhamma bhavanga, at the same time some disparages it a Hindu Atman concept... and Jayarava, someone with certain "fame" in Buddhist circle, is good in interpreting Sanskrit words, I'm not sure how he fared in Mahayana doctrines, though he seemed regarded himself a Mahayanist, from my some accidental readings. I will tend to give pass on writings by these types of writers, rather read those accomplished masters' works

Mishu, there is not one part in the brain that is responsible for one thing. The brain is a sophisticated, complex organ where multiple processes happen in a short time. It's true that there will be impairment once certain parts are injured, but the brain can store new information in other areas and become more efficient in the more prominent areas. In short, the brain is plastic, called neuroplasticity.

@Val, I appreciate the knowledge you dispensed, I watched a lot of biology, science documentaries, neuron science... etc. (I think it was BBC :). Such as how epilepsy patient gets the treatment by severing the joint of left and right brain causing them to be able to see a letter but unable to say the letter, or to write it... etc. The brain is very complex, the separating into difference regions for difference functions are hypothesis, sometimes a region can take up totally contrast function... But to confine the mind as the brain will not help one understand the Buddhist doctrines

Perhaps use the simile of the mind as the data floating in the internet, and the brain is just the hardware which is your computer. Memories can be destroyed from your hardware, but the data that generate the memories is outside of your computer. Say, if your computer broken, the comments written by you are destroyed, if you save some posts your wrote in your computer, also destroyed. But if you can access to the internet, to this website, you can retrieve your data (memories) @Val

You cannot use arbitrary, common-sense similes. If the brain is dead then there is no information processing anymore. In order to process information a brain is needed, & if this organ dies, everything else that is connected to that dies too. This is conditionality. Although information is 'outside', in the end it's physically (neuronal) manifested in the brain. What do you mean by mind? Intellect? Information processing? Mind can be all that. Mind is what the brain does. All these things underly cognitions in some form. Every other assertion & simile is probably invalid & undemonstrable.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

My comments are as follows. I have posted these basic matters many times:

Existence (bhava) is a defilement (asava). It does not mean life existence. This matter of "bhava" is the most basic & unambiguous here. "Bhava" is officially defined as one of three asava, the other two being "sensual desire" and "ignorance". There is absolutely no scope to regard "bhava" as "rebirth", as Sujato does, or life existence, as Bhikkhu Bodhi does.
The definition of birth (jati) in SN 12.2 includes the word "beings" ("sattanam") but does not define it. Therefore, it is a ordinary scholarly practise to find definitions of words. The definition of 'satta' is found SN 23.2 & also SN 5.10. If alternative definitions are not found, we should follow the official definition in SN 23.2. We need to respect the suttas rather than engage in our own personal defiled interpretations. We need to be honest and not misrepresent the suttas.
The word "kaya" does not necessarily mean "physical body" ("rupa"); such as when used in "sakkaya" and "Nikaya". There are many suttas, such as SN 12.19, where "kaya" does not mean "physical body". It means "collection" or "group". Therefore, when the suttas say: "with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared", this does not necessarily refer to the physical body. We should not insist "kaya" means "physical body"; and we should also not insist it means "collection of aggregates". In these mundane teachings about kamma, each person can choose the interpretation they wish.
"Eternalism" & "Annihilationism" are defined in DN 1, Iti 49, etc, as 'self-views', that is, beliefs that a self will continue after death or a self will end at death. They are not about the continuity or discontinuity of consciousness or suffering at the termination of life. If Annihilationism meant the ending of consciousness at the termination of life then the teaching of anicca (impermanence) would be wrong. SN 22.85 is about why a Buddha is not annihilated with death. SN 22.85 clearly says the ending of the life of a Buddha is merely the ending of the aggregates. The words "annihilation" and "death" have no relevance to an Arahant, as explained in many suttas. "Death" does not mean the termination of life. It means the "death of a self".
As for Buddhadasa, he is famous for his rejection of post-mortem rebirth (however, I heard him personally but reluctantly say in a private discussion to a young German monk who kept asking him the same question that rebirth view can help people maintain morality). Some quotes of Buddhadasa are:

Therefore, there being no one born here, there is no one who dies and is reborn. So, the whole Question of rebirth is utterly foolish and
  nothing to do with Buddhism at all.

Whenever there arises the mistaken idea "I," the "I" has been born; its parents are ignorance and craving. The kind of birth that constitutes a problem for us is mental birth. Anyone who falls to grasp this point will never succeed in understanding anything of the Buddha teaching. The word "birth" refers to the arising of the mistaken idea "I," "myself". It does not refer to physical birth, as generally supposed. The mistaken assumption that this word "birth" refers to physical birth is a major obstacle to comprehending the Buddha's teaching.

Now, going a little higher, we come to the word "birth". In everyday language, the word "birth" refers to physically coming into the world from the mother's womb. A person is the born physically only once. Having been born, one lives in the world until one dies and enters the coffin. Physical birth  happens to each of us only once. This birth from the mother's womb is what is meant by "birth" in everyday language. In Dhamma language, the word "birth" refers to the birth of the idea "I" or "ego" that arises in the mind throughout each day. In this sense, the ordinary person is born very often, time and time again; a more developed person is born less frequently; a person well advanced in practice (ariyan, noble one) is born less frequently still, and ultimately ceases being born altogether. Each arising in the mind of "I"  in one form or another is called a "birth". Thus, birth can take place many times over in a single day.   As soon as one starts thinking like an animal, one is born as an animal in that same moment. To think like a human being is to be born a human being. To think like a celestial being is to be born a celestial being. Life, the individual, pleasure and pain, and the rest-all these were identified by the Buddha as simply momentary states of consciousness. So the word "birth" means in Dhamma language the arising of the idea of "I" or "me," and not, as in everyday language, physical birth from the mother's womb. The word "birth'' is very common in the Buddha's discourses. When he was speaking of everyday things, he used the word "birth" with its everyday meaning. But when he was expounding Higher Dhamma-for instance, when discussing conditioned arising - he used the word "birth" with the meaning it has in Dhamma language. In his description of conditioned arising, he wasn't talking about physical birth. He was talking about the birth of attachment to ideas of "me" and "mine," "myself" and "my own".

No. Bhavasava is a taint, not bhava. Your argument that bhava must be mental is therefore baseless.                                                2. No. SN12.2 clearly describes birth, aging and death as physical/biological, not mental.

No. In the context referred to, kaya clearly means physical body. The fact that you have posted your Buddhadasa-style rhetoric many times does not make it correct.

no. my answer is clearly substantiated by sutta

No, it really isn't. I notice you haven't responded to my points in detail.

sorry but jati is the birth of "beings" per literal definition in SN 12.2. "A being" is defined as "strong attachment" (SN 23.2) and a view (SN 5.10). Please do not zealousness deny what is real for the sake of zealously held superstition. Superstition is not Buddha-Dhamma.

Birth, aging and and death are clearly described in biological terms in SN12.2.  So jati cannot be merely  the birth of identity, as you claim.

sorry but SN 12.2 do not describe them as biological. this is not a debate forum. you made your unsubstantiated point. please stop. thanks. the suttas say Buddhas do not "die". Its not biological

SN12.2 very clearly describes birth, aging and death as biological. Why can't you accept what the suttas say?

And please don't dismiss views other than your own as "unsubstantiated" and "superstitious". This is arrogant and patronising.


text:
Sutras says that there is nothing to attain: but is there a beginning to attaining nirvana?
Sutras says that there is nothing to attain: but is there a beginning to attaining nirvana?
See e.g. the heart sutra

No suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path, no cognition, also
  no attainment with nothing to attain.

A beginning is one who set off the mind of attaining perfect enlightenment. It could happen right now, or it happened in the past life/lives but has been forgotten...  The quoted refers to the suchness. Realizing there is no learning then all the learning is completed, so to speak :)

The teachings that describe how there is nothing to attain can easily be misleading. I think, the answer to your question is twofold.

Nirvana is not something that can be attained. This is simply because when you experience the highest truths, you realize that there is no self.
Since there is no self, there is no one present to attain anything.

For the illusory self who has not yet experience enlightenment, it appears as if there is a path to walk. It begins as soon as you choose to learn who you are. The illusory self will learn things and practice meditation. Then, the illusory self will see itself as a farce.
Do not get caught up in the trap that some do when reading these quotes. The Buddha very specifically tailored his teachings to the level of understanding those listening had. These quotes are not useful for people who are still experiencing suffering. They are an arahants understandings, meant for other enlightened beings. They are very easy to be misunderstood.
Someone commented on your post and said something id like to clarify. When it is said "Realizing there is no learning then all the learning is completed", what is being referred to is not the path of the illusory self, but what occurs once enlightenment occurs. If you still believe you are this and not that, there is still more to learn. If you still feel suffering, there is still more to learn.
The bottom line is, be careful while reading some of these teachings. Know who they were meant for, because although they may be true from a perspective that holds specific knowledge, that may not be the readers perspective.

well i agree that these statements carry different meanings depending on their context. i disagree that all they mean is anatta, and i don't find that helpful. but thanks for returning to the question!

The way I understand you realise Nibbana. It is perhaps something like by realising the world is not flat and you are not fall off the edge if you walking straight on the ground.
Understanding Aniccca, dukkha and anatta are the main realisation hence you eliminate attachment aversion and ignorance.
Noble Eightfold Path is the way to realize Nibbana.

No suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path, no cognition, also no attainment with nothing to attain.

It's important to see the full context by reading the full paragraph:

This is because in emptiness there is no form, sensation, conception, synthesis, or discrimination. There are no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, or thoughts. There are no forms, sounds, scents, tastes, sensations, or dharmas. There is no field of vision and there is no realm of thoughts. There is no ignorance nor elimination of ignorance, even up to and including no old age and death, nor elimination of old age and death. There is no suffering, its accumulation, its elimination, or a path. There is no understanding and no attaining.

So basically, all those "no's", like no eyes, ears, nose, etc. are attributes pertaining to that dimension of emptiness/suchness, which an un-enlightened being is yet able to experience. Sorta like us 4-dimensional beings are yet to experience what lies beyond our 4 dimensions. So in order to get there, there is a need for cultivation, there is a need for exerting effort, there is a need for practicing Sila, Samadhi, Panna. If there was "nothing to attain", the Buddha wouldn't have gone into great length teaching us all the details about cultivating the Noble Eightfold Path, the Four Noble Truths, the 37 Aids to Enlightenment, in which there's one key component called the Four Right Exertions

I'm going to answer the question creatively, and so not make a standard (scholastic) response.
One way of reading the phrase "nothing to attain" could be via the lotus sutra, which details the immeasurable life span of the buddha and time as a bodhisattva

In this way, since my attainment of Buddhahood it has been a very
  great interval of time. My life-span is incalculable asatkhyeyakalpas
  [rather a lot of aeons], ever enduring, never perishing. O good men!
  The life-span I achieved in my former treading of the bodhisattva path
  even now is not exhausted, for it is twice the above number. Yet even
  now, though in reality I am not to pass into extinction [enter final
  nirvana], yet I proclaim that I am about to accept extinction. By
  resort to these expedient devices [this skill-in-means] the Thus Come
  One [the Tathagata] teaches and converts the beings

If we take that to be an expression of emptiness, then, working forwards, nirvana is empty because it is not (coherently) final. And then, working backwards, the same is twice as true of beginning to attain nirvana!
In Tenadi Buddhism each of the nobles truths is just as empty as the other, the path is empty in the exact same was as extinction is. Though, interestingly, Tendai seems to claim the opposite of yoagacara Buddhism (that the path is not one and the buddha nature), straw man or not. I'll get a reference for that later.


text:
Latent tendencies, memories of this life and brain damage, dementia
This question is from the Theravada perspective only.

How are memories of this life stored and recalled? Is it stored in the physical brain?
There is the concept of latent tendencies (anusaya). Conceit is one of them. How are the latent tendencies of this life stored? Is it stored in the physical brain?
Does the bhavanga-citta of the Abhidhamma include some kind of storage function or not? If yes, what does it store?
If someone suffers from brain damage or dementia, they can lose their memories and/or have their personality altered (possibly including some change in latent tendencies). How does this work within the Theravada framework for moment to moment birth and death? The answer to this question may depend on the earlier questions.

The question seems to misconstrue the idea of "momentariness".
"Momentariness" does not mean everything exists for a "moment". "Momentariness" is merely the recognition that consciousness & thought arises for a moment (but other things do not necessarily exist for a moment).
SN 12.61 may help, here:

It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the
  mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four
  great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But
  what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by
  night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
  swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
  it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
  Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
  called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
  arises as one thing and ceases as another.

That SN 12.61 says the physical body can be seem to last for a long time supports the view in the question that tendencies & memories are stored in the brain. Personally, I don't see the point of speculating about scriptures in the situation where both science & personal experience tell us where latent tendencies & memories are stored. You know as an observable fact that brain injury impairs memory therefore what is the point of denying this reality and seeking to explain it in an alternate speculative unknowable way?
In MN 64, the Buddha said the underlying tendencies exist within the new born child, even though these underlying tendencies are yet to arise into the child's conscious mind. The Buddha said nothing about "past lives" here. The underlying tendencies are natural elements (dhatu). They have no relationship to past lives. Men & women are born with sexual organs and sexual apparatus (such as a womb). When their bodies mature, these sexual tendencies start to produce chemicals and hormones which result in the salient arising of sexual lust in the young man and young woman. We can see through mere observation that the growth in the mental defilement of lust is related to the growth & maturity of the physical body.


text:
Are there any scientifically validated practices for Buddhists?
We know there are already hundreds of studies with promising results. State of enlightenment is already documented and can be measured.
So I am asking whether exists some resources or even a curriculum of best practices that lead enlightenment and are supported by scientific research.

There are scientifically validated practices, not for Buddhists, but for patients looking to prevent recurrence of depression and anxiety, as well as those with chronic pain. If you are interested, please see this answer.

I would say they are all scientifically validated. It would be the only way to valldiate them. I think you;re speaking only of the physical sciences and these are the wrong tool for the job.

Why these are the wrong tool for the job? What would be a better tool?

The Buddha himself advocates the scientific method:

the teaching realizable in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves --SN35.70

The practice of Buddhism is essentially endless lab experiments with reproducible results. The results are subjective and difficult to measure externally. For example, what meter can one buy to measure "tranquility"? A heart rate monitor that measures tranquility as low BPM? Maybe not, since dead people are quite tranquil at 0 BPM.
Because science prefers instrumented measurements over self-reported assessments, a scientist interested in measuring the results of Buddhist practice objectively (i.e., vs. "are you tranquil?") must do so a bit indirectly. For example, there is interest in MRI scans of meditators.
Although the reliance on instruments is fascinating, it's also a bit more than what is actually needed. If we experience a cessation of suffering, do we really need external instrument validation? And what would convince someone more to try the Noble Eight Fold Path: a scientific paper, or a friend with a clear heart?

I'd give this more upvotes if I could. Where Buddhist practice is not scientific it is likely to be hopeless. If we extend the word 'empiricism' to include direct experience and explore this as the Buddha advises then it is an empirical science. Essentially it is lab experiments, just as you say. I wish its critics would bother to learn this. So many folk believe it is conjectural and faith-based one would think the printing press hadn't been invented. .

I have yet to know a Fair-Seeing God as such. Some experiments are...difficult.

I'm not looking to contest buddhism from a scientific view, but from what i can tell the times when buddhism was founded or formulated was done based on different epistemological and ontological premises compared to our contemporary idea of scientific validation. In that sense buddhism and modern science are incommensurable paradigms, and expecting buddhism to be scientific would run the risk of being a bit of an anachronistic assumption.
As for the opposite direction, applying modern science to examine certain buddhist concepts are widely practiced, but i take it from your question that you're already aware of that. (If not, a personal favorite of mine is Paul Gilberts research and operalization of loving kindness and compassion).

I'd say Buddhism is empirical and experience-dependent and as such is scientific.It was scientific before the word was invented. I see nothing in Popper that disqualifies Buddhism. .

Quite the opposite. The only real difference between Buddhism and Science is that Science has focused on the world outside the mind and Buddhism in the world inside it. It is the same basic perspective applied to very different and disjoint areas which clearly leads to different methodologies, purposes, and results. It is only in the modern era that these areas are starting to overlap and see the value in each other.


text:
What do Venerable Cha Mo's similes on the Flower's Scent and the Perfumed Rag mean with regard to satkāyadṛṣṭi?
In the Khemakabhikṣusūtra, 差摩比丘經, Sermon of the Monk Chà Mó, T99.29c06 Saṁyuktāgama sūtra #103 (readable in Pāli at 22.89 of the Saṁyuttamikāya)Venerable Chà Mó, who is Khemakabhikkhu in Pāli, gives a sermon to "many elder monks". This has to-do with Ven Chà Mó's not-yet-having-attained severance from pernicious and subtle self-view.
To illustrate his quandary and, in so doing, seemingly educating himself to overcome his fetter, he delivers the simile of the flower's scent and the simile of the perfumed rag. The simile of the flower's scent challenges the elders to locate the locus of the scent of a flower. The simile of the perfumed rag speaks of a launderer who hides the filth introduced to a piece of fabric with a skilled application of perfumes.
What do these mean?
Context:

Like this I heard:
One day, there were myriad elder monks dwelling in Kauśambī at
  Ghoṣitārāma.
At that time, there was the monk Chà Mó dwelling also in Kauśambī by
  the badarikā orchard, his body was increasing in iterations of woe and
  sicknesses.
At that time, there was the monk Tuó Suō keeping watch over the sick.
  At that time, Tuó Suō came to the myriad elder monks, bowed to the
  myriad elder monks’s feet, then to one side retreated to reside there.
The myriad elder monks spoke to the monk Tuó Suō: “You, go to the monk
  Chà Mó, speak: ‘The myriad elders implore you: Does your body slowly
  come to find peace? Do suffering and misery not increase, is it yes?’”
At that time, the monk Tuó Suō, subject to the myriad elder monks'
  dispensation, came to the monk Chà Mó and told to Chà Mó their
  tellings, saying: “The myriad elders beseech you, your body slowly
  comes to find peace, sufferings and miseries do not increase, yes?”
Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō saying: “I am sick and not recovering, I do
  not find peace, myriad hardships accumulate without salvation,
  tremendous and mighty suffering aches me, I presently suffer and
  endure much. It is like the slaughter of a bull, the sharp knife
  having cut into the live stomach, to fetch its inner organs, that
  bull’s stomach pain is the very same as what I am enduring! My present
  stomach pain is greater than that of the bull’s. It is as if two
  warriors clutched one weak man, suspended him attached above a fire,
  burning his two feet, my present two feet’s burnings are greater than
  his.”
At that time, Tuó Suō returned to the elders, according to what Chà Mó
  had said, he told them of his great sickness, entirely explaining to
  the elders.
At that time, the elders returned Tuó Suō, dispatching him to come to
  Chà Mó, that he might speak to Chà Mó, to say: “The Bhagavān has
  taught these five aggregates of binding, which of these five? The
  rūpaskandha, vedanā, saṃjñā, saṃskāra, vijñānaskandha, you, Chà Mó,
  can only poorly observe that these five aggregates of binding are
  without you, and are nothing to you belonging resolutely.”
At that time, Tuó Suō subject to the elders taught likewise
  thereafter, went forth to speak to Chà Mó, saying: “The elders speak
  to you, the Bhagavān speaks of these five aggregates of binding, you
  poorly observe they are without you, and are nothing to you belonging
  resolutely.”
Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō, saying: “I, in these five aggregates of
  binding, am able to find no me, and they are nothing to me belonging.”
Tuó Suō returned to address the elders: “The monk Chà Mó spoke,
  saying: ‘I, in these five aggregates of binding, observe and find no
  me, and they are nothing I own.’”
The elders again dispatched Tuó Suō to speak to Chà Mó, to say: “You,
  in these five aggregates of binding observe and find no me, and they
  are nothing I own, thus āsravāḥ are all-ended, and you are an arhat,
  resolutely?”
At that time, Tuó Suō, subject to the elders’s teachings, came closer
  to the monk Chà Mó, speaking to Chà Mó, saying: “The monk is able to
  thusly observe the five aggregates of binding, thus his āsravāḥ are
  all ended, an arhat he is, resolutely?”
Chà Mó replied to Tuó Suō, saying: “I observe these five aggregates of
  binding and find no me, and are nothing I own, but it is not that my
  āsravāḥ are all ended and it is not that I am an arhat resolutely.”
At that time, Tuó Suō left and returned to the elders, addressed the
  eldesr: “Chà Mó spoke: ‘I observe these five aggregates of binding and
  find no me, and are nothing I own, and yet it is not that my āsravāḥ
  are all ended and it is not that I am an arhat resolutely.’”
At that time, the elderes spoke to Tuó Suō: “You will again return to
  speak with Chà Mó: ‘You say: “I observe these five aggregates of
  binding and find no me, and are nothing I own, and yet it is not that
  my āsravāḥ are all ended [and it is not] that I am an arhat.” The
  front and end of your notion are incoherent.’”
Tuó Suō, subject to the elders’s teachings, went forth to Chà Mó: “You
  say: ‘I observe these five aggregates of binding and find no me,
  nothing to me belonging, and yet it is not that my āsravāḥ are all
  ended and it is not that I am an arhat.’ The front and end of your
  notion are incoherent.”
Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō saying: “I in these five aggregates of
  binding, observe and find no me, and nothing to me belonging,
  meanwhile I am not an arhat, I with my pride, my desiring, this
  I-making. I am not yet resolute, not yet knowing it, not yet having
  severed from it, not yet having vomited it out.”
Tuó Suō left and returned to the elders, himself speaking to the
  elders: “Chà Mó said: ‘I in these five aggregates of binding, observe
  and find no me, and nothing to me belonging, meanwhile I am not an
  arhat, I with my pride, my desiring, I-making, I am not yet resolute,
  not yet knowing, not yet having severed, not yet having vomited.
The elders once more dispatched Tuó Suō to speak to Chà Mó, to say:
  “You speak of having ātman, how to you have ātman? It is that your
  form is ātman? It is that ātman is other than your form? Feelings,
  thoughts, formations, consciousness, this is "me?" Am I other than
  consciousness?”
Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō saying: “I do not say that my form is me, nor
  am I other than form; nor that feelings, thoughts, formations,
  consciousness, are me and mine, nor that I am other than
  consciousness, thus in these five aggregates of binding I have pride,
  I have desiring, these are I-makings. I am not yet resolute, not yet
  knowing, not yet having severed from it, not yet having vomited it
  out.”
Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō saying: “What vexation moves you, spurring you
  on to directions contrary? You fetch a cane, that I may come, I myself
  with my cane, will approach the elders, I beseech you, give me my
  cane.”
At that time, the myriad elders, in the distance, saw Chà Mó with his
  staff on his way coming, themselves spread out a seat for him, found a
  place to rest his feet, themselves went forth to greet him, to take
  his robe and alms bowl, ordering that he promptly sit, exchanging
  words to reassure the weary, speaking to Chà Mó saying:
“You speak of having ātman, how to you have ātman? It is that your
  form is ātman? It is that ātman is other than your form? Feelings,
  thoughts, formations, consciousness, this is "me?" Am I other than
  consciousness?”
Chà Mó Bhikṣu spoke:
“It is not that form is me, but it is not that I am other than form;
  there is no feeling, thought, formation, or consciousness that is
  mine, yet I am not other than consciousness, thus in these five
  aggregates of binding I have my pride, I have my desiring, this
  I-making. I am not yet resolute, I am not yet knowing, not yet having
  severed, not yet having vomited. It is like the flowers. The utpala,
  paduma, kumuda, or puṇḍarīka flower's. It is like these flowers'
  scent. Is it the roots' scent? Is the scent other than the roots? Is
  it the stem's, the leaf's, the whiskers', the fine constituents' or
  the coarse constituents' scent? Are the fine constituents other than
  the coarse constituents? It is so said, no?"
The elders responded: "No, resolutely, Chà Mó! It is not the utpala's,
  the paduma's, the kumuda's, the puṇḍarīka's roots’ scent, but it is
  not that the scent is other than root, so too also it is not the
  stem's, the leaf's, the whiskers', the fine constituents', or the
  coarse constituents' scent, so too also it is not that the fine
  constituents are other than the coarse constituents."
Chà Mó again asked: "It is what's scent?"
The elders replied: "It is the flower's."
Chà Mó again replied: "I, too, am thus so. It is not that my form is
  me, yet I am not other than form; there is no feeling, thought,
  formation, or consciousness that is resolutely mine, yet I am not
  apart from consciousness. So I in these five aggregates of binding see
  no me, and they are nothing I own, as such is my pride, my desiring,
  I-making, not yet resolute, not yet knowing, not yet having severed,
  not yet having vomited. Elders, hear my exposition of analogy.
  Worldlings and sages, on account of metaphor attain to understanding.
  Such an analogy is this: The wet-nurse has a cloth, she pays the
  launderer to wash it, he washes it with all kinds of grey broth, he
  rinses until glistening. The filth still remainders lingering in
  fumes, there must be applied to it all kinds of incenses & perfumes,
  he knows how to cause these fumes to vanish. Like this, one must
  inquire into what extent the sage disciple severs from these five
  aggregates of binding, with true insight there is no me, and there is
  nothing I own, enduring these five aggregates of binding I have pride,
  I have desiring, I-making, not yet resolute, not yet knowing, not yet
  having severed, not yet having vomited. Afterwards, in these five
  aggregates of binding, further investigation is undertook, profound
  insight into saṃsāra is attained, this form, this form’s origin, this
  form’s cessation, this feeling, thought, formation, consciousness,
  this consciousness’s origin, this consciousness’s cessation. And so,
  in these five aggregates of binding, with profound insight into
  saṃsāra, after that, my pride, my desiring, these I-makings, are all
  entirely cast away, this is called penetrating insight into the true
  aspect.”
When Chà Mó spoke the dharma, those elders’s manifold contaminants
  became immaculate with their attainment of the pure dharma eye.

(Khemakabhikṣusūtra 差摩比丘經 Sermon of the Monk Chà Mó T99.29c06 Saṁyuktāgama sūtra #103)

The meaning seems very clear from reading the Pali sutta. It just means, whoever has overcome the five lower fetters (which includes the self-view), may still have lingering sense of "I".
The first parable compares this lingering sense with lingering smell of lotus - just like smell does not come from a particular part of the plant, the lingering sense of I does not come from identification with any of the five aggregates and yet there it is.
The second parable illustrates how this situation develops. Just like a washed clothes may still have lingering smell of detergent which eventually goes away, someone without five fetters may still have lingering sense of I, which eventually goes away.
And how does it go away? According to sutta, through analytical meditation on coming together and disbanding of causal chains that are mistaken for sentient beings.

yes Puthujjanas struggle already with sakkay ditthi,  but there is not much more to say than what is stated by the non-puthujjana Khemaka.
The lack of sakkya ditthi just means

“Friend, concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the
  Blessed One—i.e., the form clinging-aggregate, the feeling
  clinging-aggregate, the perception clinging-aggregate, the
  fabrications clinging-aggregate, the consciousness clinging-aggregate:
  With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I
  assume to be self or belonging to self, and yet I am not an arahant.
  With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, ‘I am’ has not been
  overcome, although I don’t assume that ‘I am this.’”
  https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_89.html

That is part of the famous explanation of ''anatta'' by the buddha with the usual contemplation of anatta as in

'This is not mine,
I am not this,
this is not my self.'

which is the famous

n'etaɱ mama,|| neso'ham asmi|| na me so attā' ti.|| ||

to fight directly the wrong view of atta, as explained in the second sermon, http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/khandha/sn22-059.html
https://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/a-note-on-atta-in-the-aladaddupama-sutta_norman_ld_1981.pdf
Lack of Sakkya ditthi is the 3 above, minus the famous ''asmi'' or ''asmimāna'',  on which puthujjanas love to speculate.
The non-puthujjana Khemaka says it is like the scent of a flower, precisely because you cannot pinpoint it to one aggregate. At best you can express it as a some residual lust towards something, but asmi is not like lust towards form or existence.
The famous Pyia Tan has an analysis of this sutta
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/14.13-Khemaka-S-s22.89-piya.pdf
and how perception of anicca destroy even this asmi http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/12.12-Anicca-Sanna-S-s22.102-piya.pdf


text:
Diamond Sutra in Tibetan, Sanskrit, and/or Japanese
Does anyone know where I can find a version of the Diamond Sutra that is in one of these three formats:

Classical Tibetan with Romanized Tibetan and English

Devangari with Romanized Sanskrit and English

Japanese with Romaji and English

एवं मया श्रुतम् evaṃ mayā śrutam
एकस्मिन् समये भगवान् श्रावस्त्यां विहरति स्म जेतवनेऽनाथपिण्डदस्यारामे
  महता भिक्षुसंघेन सार्थं त्रयोदशभिर्भिक्षुशतैः संबहुलैश्च
  बोधिसत्त्वैर्महासत्त्वैः ekasmin samaye bhagavān śrāvastyāṃ viharati
  sma jetavane'nāthapiṇḍadasyārāme mahatā bhikṣusaṃghena sārthaṃ
  trayodaśabhirbhikṣuśataiḥ saṃbahulaiśca bodhisattvairmahāsattvaiḥ
अथ खलु भगवान् पूर्वाह्णकालसमये निवास्य पात्रचीवरमादाय श्रावस्तीं
  महानगरीं पिण्डाय प्राविक्षत् atha khalu bhagavān pūrvāhṇakālasamaye
  nivāsya pātracīvaramādāya śrāvastīṃ mahānagarīṃ piṇḍāya prāvikṣat
अथ खलु भगवान् श्रावस्तीं महानगरीं पिण्डाय चरित्वा कृतभक्तकृत्यः
  पश्चाद्भक्तपिण्डपातप्रतिक्रान्तः atha khalu bhagavān śrāvastīṃ
  mahānagarīṃ piṇḍāya caritvā kṛtabhaktakṛtyaḥ
  paścādbhaktapiṇḍapātapratikrāntaḥ
पात्रचीवरं प्रतिशाम्य पादौ प्रक्षाल्य न्यषीदत्प्रज्ञप्त एवासने
  पर्यङ्कमाभुज्य ऋजुं कायं प्रणिधाय प्रतिमुखीं स्मृतिमुपस्थाप्य| अथ खलु
  संबहुला भिक्षवो येन भगवांस्तेनोपसंक्रामन् उपसंक्रम्य भगवतः पादौ
  शिरोभिरभिवन्द्य भगवन्तं त्रिष्प्रदक्षिणीकृत्य एकान्ते न्यषीदन्
  pātracīvaraṃ pratiśāmya pādau prakṣālya nyaṣīdatprajñapta evāsane
  paryaṅkamābhujya ṛjuṃ kāyaṃ praṇidhāya pratimukhīṃ smṛtimupasthāpya
  atha khalu saṃbahulā bhikṣavo yena bhagavāṃstenopasaṃkrāman
  upasaṃkramya bhagavataḥ pādau śirobhirabhivandya bhagavantaṃ
  triṣpradakṣiṇīkṛtya ekānte nyaṣīdan
तेन खलु पुनः समयेनायुष्मान् सुभुतिस्तस्यामेव पर्षदि
  संनिपतितोऽभूत्संनिषण्णः अथ खल्वायुष्मान्
  सुभूतिरुत्थायासनादेकांसमुत्तरासङ्गं कृत्वा दक्षिणं जानुमण्डलं
  पृथिव्यां प्रतिष्ठाप्य येन भगवांस्तेनाञ्जलिं प्रणम्य भगवन्तमेतदवोचत्
  आश्चर्यं भगवन्, परमाश्चर्यं सुगत, यावदेव तथागतेनार्हता सम्यक्संबुद्धेन
  बोधिसत्त्वा महासत्त्वा अनुपरिगृहीताः परमेणानुग्रहेण tena khalu punaḥ
  samayenāyuṣmān subhutistasyāmeva parṣadi saṃnipatito'bhūtsaṃniṣaṇṇaḥ
  atha khalvāyuṣmān subhūtirutthāyāsanādekāṃsamuttarāsaṅgaṃ kṛtvā
  dakṣiṇaṃ jānumaṇḍalaṃ pṛthivyāṃ pratiṣṭhāpya yena bhagavāṃstenāñjaliṃ
  praṇamya bhagavantametadavocatāścaryaṃ bhagavan, paramāścaryaṃ sugata,
  yāvadeva tathāgatenārhatā samyaksaṃbuddhena bodhisattvā mahāsattvā
  anuparigṛhītāḥ parameṇānugraheṇa
आश्चर्यं भगवन् यावदेव तथागतेनार्हता सम्यक्संबुद्धेन बोधिसत्त्वा
  महासत्त्वाः परीन्दिताः परमया परीन्दनया| तत्कथं भगवन्
  बोधिसत्त्वयानसंप्रस्थितेन कुलपुत्रेण वा कुलदुहित्रा वा स्थातव्यं कथं
  प्रतिपत्तव्यं कथं चित्तं प्रग्रहीतव्यम् āścaryaṃ bhagavan yāvadeva
  tathāgatenārhatā samyaksaṃbuddhena bodhisattvā mahāsattvāḥ parīnditāḥ
  paramayā parīndanayā| tatkathaṃ bhagavan bodhisattvayānasaṃprasthitena
  kulaputreṇa vā kuladuhitrā vā sthātavyaṃ kathaṃ pratipattavyaṃ kathaṃ
  cittaṃ pragrahītavyam
एवमुक्ते भगवानायुष्मन्तं सुभूतिमेतदवोचत्साधु साधु सुभूते,
  एवमेतत्सुभूते, एवमेतद्यथा वदसि अनुपरिगृहीतास्तथागतेन बोधिसत्त्वा
  महासत्त्वाः परमेणानुग्रहेण परीन्दितास्तथागतेन बोधिसत्त्वा महासत्त्वाः
  परमया परीन्दनया तेन हि सुभूते शृणु, साधु च सुष्ठु च मनसि कुरु,
  भाषिष्येऽहं तेयथा बोधिसत्त्वयानसंप्रस्थितेन स्थातव्यं यथा
  प्रतिपत्तव्यं यथा चित्तं प्रग्रहीतव्यम् एवं भगवन् इत्यायुष्यान्
  सुभूतिर्भगवतः प्रत्यश्रौषीत् evamukte bhagavānāyuṣmantaṃ
  subhūtimetadavocatsādhu sādhu subhūte, evametatsubhūte, evametadyathā
  vadasi anuparigṛhītāstathāgatena bodhisattvā mahāsattvāḥ
  parameṇānugraheṇa parīnditāstathāgatena bodhisattvā mahāsattvāḥ
  paramayā parīndanayā tena hi subhūte śṛṇu, sādhu ca suṣṭhu ca manasi
  kuru, bhāṣiṣyehaṃ te-yathā bodhisattvayānasaṃprasthitena sthātavyaṃ
  yathā pratipattavyaṃ yathā cittaṃ pragrahītavyam evaṃ bhagavan
  ityāyuṣyān subhūtirbhagavataḥ pratyaśrauṣīt
भगवानस्यैतदवोचतिह सुभूते बोधिसत्त्वयानसंप्रस्थितेनैव
  चित्तमुत्पादयितव्यम्यावन्तः सुभूते सत्त्वाः सत्त्वधातौ सत्त्वसंग्रहेण
  संगृहीता अण्डजा वा जरायुजा वा संस्वेदजा वा औपपादुका वा रूपिणो वा
  अरूपिणो वा संज्ञिनो वा असंज्ञिनो वा नैवसंज्ञिनो नासंज्ञिनो वा, यावान्
  कश्चित्सत्त्वधातुः प्रज्ञप्यमानः प्रज्ञप्यते, ते च मया सर्वेऽनुपधिशेषे
  निर्वाणधातौ परिनिर्वापयितव्याः bhagavānasyaitadavocatiha subhūte
  bodhisattvayānasaṃprasthitenaiva cittamutpādayitavyam-yāvantaḥ subhūte
  sattvāḥ sattvadhātau sattvasaṃgraheṇa saṃgṛhītā aṇḍajā vā jarāyujā vā
  saṃsvedajā vā aupapādukā vā rūpiṇo vā arūpiṇo vā saṃjñino vā asaṃjñino
  vā naivasaṃjñino nāsaṃjñino vā, yāvān kaścitsattvadhātuḥ
  prajñapyamānaḥ prajñapyate, te ca mayā sarvenupadhiśeṣe nirvāṇadhātau
  parinirvāpayitavyāḥ

See the rest of the Sanskrit text here: http://ntireader.org/taisho/t0235.html (this source also has it in Chinese, in case you wanted it in that language).
Use this converted to generate Devanāgari script: Transliteration Tool -- ashtangayoga.info


text:
How does Buddhism deal with psychopaths & serial killer
What do the suttas say about such people? Surely they're acting on their ignorance (dependent origination), but can't they make use of restraint/self control?
Is there no penalization in such cases according to the Dhamma? If murderers show no regret, then they aren't even born in hell right now.

The suttas say murderers are taken before the King and get executed. The Buddha had equanimity towards this; as shown in many suttas.

Very well then, Aggivessana, I will cross-question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think? Would a consecrated,
  noble-warrior king — such as King Pasenadi of Kosala or King
  Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha — wield the power in his own domain
  to execute those who deserve execution, to fine those who deserve to
  be fined, and to banish those who deserve to be banished?
Then the Blessed One said to him, "Answer now, Aggivessana. This is not the time to be silent. When anyone doesn't answer when asked a
  legitimate question by the Tathāgata up to three times, his head
  splits into seven pieces right here."
Now on that occasion the spirit (yakkha) Vajirapāṇin [Thunderbolt-in-Hand], carrying an iron thunderbolt, was poised in the
  air above Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son, (thinking,) "If Saccaka the
  Nigaṇṭha-son doesn't answer when asked a legitimate question by the
  Blessed One up to three times, I will split his head into seven pieces
  right here."
MN 35

For example, in the Angulimala Sutta, when the King threatened to capture & execute the serial killer Angulimala, the Lord Buddha did not exhort the King to not do so. Instead, the Buddha said to the King: "What would you do if I rendered Angulimala harmless?"

Then King Pasenadi Kosala, with a cavalry of roughly 500 horsemen, drove out of Savatthi and entered the monastery. Driving as far as the
  ground was passable for chariots, he got down from his chariot and
  went on foot to the Blessed One. On arrival, having bowed down, he sat
  to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him,
  "What is it, great king? Has King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha provoked
  you, or have the Licchavis of Vesali or some other hostile king?"
"No, lord. King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha hasn't provoked me, nor have the Licchavis of Vesali, nor has some other hostile king. There
  is a bandit in my realm, lord, named Angulimala: brutal,
  bloody-handed, devoted to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to
  living beings. He has turned villages into non-villages, towns into
  non-towns, settled countryside into unsettled countryside. Having
  repeatedly killed human beings, he wears a garland made of fingers. I
  am going to stamp him out."
"Great king, suppose you were to see Angulimala with his hair & beard shaved off, wearing the ochre robe, having gone forth from the home
  life into homelessness, refraining from killing living beings,
  refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from telling
  lies, living the holy life on one meal a day, virtuous & of fine
  character: what would you do to him?"
"We would bow down to him, lord, or rise up to greet him, or offer him a seat, or offer him robes, almsfood, lodgings, or medicinal
  requisites for curing illness; or we would arrange a lawful guard,
  protection, & defense. But how could there be such virtue & restraint
  in an unvirtuous, evil character?"
MN 86

In other words, the Buddha was not a secular law-maker, such as Moses or Mohammed (PBUH) were. The impression is it is the role of the secular society (and not the Buddhist Sangha) to determine its criminal law. If secular law-makers decide to follow the example of the Buddha to attempt to reform criminals, its up to those lawmakers.

So in summary, it is in some way opposed to killing, but on a social level it endorses killing if necessary?

I wouldn't say the Buddha endorsed killing. It just that the Buddha was not a secular law maker. I think it is up to secular society to determine its criminal law. the Buddha did not "micro-manage" people (like say Moses did in the Old Testament). the precepts offer guidance to society but they are not absolute commandments

I don't think it endorses bandits for example. Perhaps it accepts they exist, e.g. to the extent of suggesting that you avoid them.

By letting law enforcement do their thing?
Regret is not needed for the consequences of your actions to happen.

I downvoted this answer because law enforcement wasn't mentioned in my questions nor was any sutta reference mentioned.

It does not have to. If you look at Buddhist stories you would notice that Buddha did not got involved in this sort of things. Only major exception would be if the killer had the potential to become an aharath (Angulimala). In that case also Buddha was trying to save him frlm himself before he get a chase to kill his mother

I think the suttas have two or three messages, addressed to each of us as individuals:

Don't be harmful (e.g. keep the precepts)
Don't suffer from harm (e.g parable of the saw)
Don't perpetuate harm (e.g. first verses of Dhammapada)

Sometimes a counter-argument to doing something is, "but what if everybody did that?" For example maybe it's not very harmful if one person cuts down a tree, but what if everybody does?
But these rules, I think they generalise -- i.e. if everyone was like that it would still be no problem, no harm.
I think that the Buddhism of the suttas though isn't primarily laws about how to govern lay society.
There's one more thing, I read that the Buddha never approved killing -- ever -- except killing anger (and therefore wouldn't approve of executing serial killers).
Getting the Message

When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill. As he told the monks,

"Even if bandits were to carve you up etc.

I think that Buddhist countries (like Tibet) tended to impose non-lethal punishments on criminals.

I marked this answer down because it has not sutta support. This answer appears to confuse the spiritual path with secular worldly affairs. There is no evidence in the suttas I have read where the Buddha lobbied Kings to not execute criminals.

I added a reference

The reference appears to be about how monks should behave. Also, in Tibet, people were punished by cutting off hands and poking out eyes. Execution also happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy#Prior_to_1950  Its seems like your ideas about Tibet are the Hollywood version.

True -- a lot of the suttas are about that. I'm semi-surprised at your answer, i.e. I thought you said that mistrusted doctrines (calling them "late" or "added") which may be seen as adapting Buddhist doctrine towards legitimising secular power e.g. of the Mauryan empire.

Its seems like your ideas about Tibet are the Hollywood version That was from the book, Seven Years in Tibet. The Wikipedia article you linked to says "Because Tibetan Buddhism prohibits killing..."


text:
How could craving be the habit of reification?
Below, it says that "craving" is the habit of reifying things, resulting in the notion that we need ever-increasingly more things to live happily.
How could craving (tanha) be the habit of reification (papanca)? How does it link?
From Piya Tan's commentary of Cetana Sutta (SN 12.38-40):

What is interesting here is Mahā Cunda’s statement (from MN 144)
  that rebirth and suffering are rooted in "emotional dependence"
  (nissita), which the Majjhima Commentary explains as arising on
  account of craving and view (MA 5:83). "Craving" is the habit of
  reifying people, things and ideas, resulting in the notion that we
  need "more and more" to live happily; "view" is the delusion that
  sustains and moves craving, and its necessary opposite, hate.

Reification is simpistic naive superficial perception. It's a generalization of the same problem that children have with toys. A child sees a new shiny toy and because he does not think deeply, because his perception is superficial - in his mind the toy is attractive and desirable.
Reification is seeing the outer image and buying into its glow, its fake promise to make you happy.

Does this 'perception' you are referring to apply to every sense object? Also relationships etc.?

Yes, of course.


text:
How do you meditate with a blocked nose?
I have a blocked nose and I can’t feel the breath sensations. Should I put my finger to feel the breath? Is it ok if I focus on other things like finger touching each other? How do I feel the breath sensations if my nose is blocked?

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

According to Chapter 2 "Sitting Meditation" of the book "How To Meditate" by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu, you can try to observe abdomen movements, instead of nasal passage sensations:

The purpose of formal meditation is to limit our experience to the
  fewest number of objects in order to allow for easy observation
  without becoming overwhelmed or distracted. When sitting still, the
  whole body is tranquil and the only movement is when the breath enters
  and leaves the body. When the breath enters the body, there should be
  a rising motion in the abdomen. When the breath leaves the body, there
  should likewise be a falling motion. If the movement is not readily
  apparent, you can put your hand on your abdomen until it becomes
  clear.
If it is difficult to perceive the motion of the abdomen even with
  your hand, you can try lying down on your back until you are able to
  perceive it. Difficulty in finding the rising and falling motion of
  the abdomen when sitting is generally due to mental tension and
  stress; if one is patient and persistent in the practice, one’s mind
  and body will begin to relax until one is able to breathe as naturally
  sitting up as when lying down.
The most important thing to remember is that we are trying to observe
  the breath in its natural state, rather than forcing or controlling it
  in any way. In the beginning, the breath may be shallow or
  uncomfortable, but once the mind begins to let go and stops trying to
  control the breath, the rise and fall of the abdomen will become more
  clear and allow for comfortable observation.
It is this rising and falling motion that we will use as our first
  object of meditation. Once we are able to observe the motion of the
  abdomen without difficulty, it will serve as a default object of
  meditation for us to return to at any time.

Can I enter jhana by focusing on the abdomen?

Observing the sensation of the movement of the abdomen caused by breathing, is the same as observing the sensation of breathing. You can use it for both samatha (jhana) and vipassana, from my understanding. On the other hand, a kasina like earth, water, or the colour white can only be used for samatha (jhana) and not vipassana, because it is imagined and not real.

Maybe try to troubleshoot the causes to the blocked nose first. If it's just normal nose booger, gently blow your nose before the sitting to clear nasal passage. If it's allergy/inflammation, eat high vitamins fruits/veggies and maintain regular daily exercises. Anyway, usually once you've gotten into some relatively settled absorption state, the allergy/inflammation tend to naturally subside and you'll breathe better.

It feels like my nose is is clear but I can’t feel the breath sensations

I remember it said somewhere that if you can't "feel" the breath sensation, you can try maintain "awareness" at the location of the point of touch (nostrils or upper lip). Anywho, it's probably a good idea to try to identify the root cause to your blocked nose first though...

Most Buddhists interpret MN 135 to mean blocked nose is due to bad evil kamma performed in past lives, as follows:

There is the case where a woman or man is one who harms beings with his/her fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives. Through having
  adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after
  death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead
  he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is sickly wherever
  reborn. This is the way leading to sickliness: to be one who harms
  beings with one's fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives.

According to the viewpoint of these Buddhists, it seems unknowable how many lifetimes, possibly billions, it will take to resolve such past kamma and attain jhana. It seems attaining jhana is very difficult, even impossible, with blocked nose. It would commence with cultivating metta towards all living creatures, large & small. Also, vegetarianism might help.

Well, now my nose is unblocked.