Ah, so you do see the aggregates as having an essence or substance aka dukkha. I didn’t expect that, but then I don’t expect a lot of things 
Not at all. That isn’t my view.
the different wrong views exists inside the Suttas, mostly because the interchange with other ascetics.
There are lists like in example the 62 wrong views and similar, although there addressed more to oneself in other terms. I doubt there is an specific list with all the possible wrong views about nibbana because it could be endless. Nibbana is the leaving of all views. However, one can detect the same wrong views kept by ascetics in Buddha times, sometimes appearing like a new combination of different things. Some things can remember the Charvakas while others the Ajnana philosophy and so on.
In example, in this case with a new nibbana-nothingness, there is a clear kidnapping of the sphere of nothingness, a well described -self delusion ambit. And also how it goes in company of an underlying materialism denying the power of the Buddha teaching to transcend the Reality until the death arrives.
One can read in example “The Notion of Ditthi in Theravada Buddhism” Paul fuller, or “Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrine” Maha Thera Nyanatiloka
you are right. All views are defective because the only right position is anatta and nibbana with the eradication of views. However, the same Buddha used the notion of wrong view because some ideas and mind images can be obstacles for the goal, while the right views can clarify the path.
Nibbana should be observed like a result. The ideas and images we kept logically can impede the arising of that result when these are contradicting the nature of nibbana. If somebody believes the nibbana is a nothingness, panna (wisdom) will not arise for nibbana, and that’s fully logical.
However, if somebody believes this is not an annihilation ambit, then panna can arise, despite no idea of what exactly it can be.
If we need additional ideas to pacify our reason then we can use the Buddha descriptions: the more important is that nibbana is happiness. Because the inner joy due to the simple fact of the rare opportunity to keep Dhamma is a requested factor for enlightenment.
Emptiness (anatta), equanimity and other issues also are useful to be focused like the nature of nibbana. And despite none of them can catch their exact nature in nibbana, the person is pointing in the right way to nibbana.
If one points to an ambit of annihilation obviously the mind is going in a different road.
yes, this is due to the assumption about the -self will be annihilated in nibbana. This is not in that way and from here the insistence of the Buddha to avoid the extremes of “-self exists” or “-self doesn’t exist”. What is eradicated is the clinging to -self, to atta. And this is not the same thing.
This is a similar problem regarding what happens with the defense of that nothingness like the Cease of the aggregates while there is an oblivion of the difference between the five aggregates and the five clinging-aggregates as previously pointed.
I have read in this board “in nibbana you will not enjoy of nibbana”. This can sound intellectually right but this is wrong in real terms. Because in nibbana it is not only impossible to claim that one was there but also that one was not there.
the goal of the dependent origination teaching is to end dukkha and birth, and this was taught to be realized in life.
After that point the birth is ended and there is no more dukkha. The kamma to be exhausted including the arising consciousness due to the sense activity it lacks of relevance. Just it happens that you understand the “Cease of Consciousness” like the annihilation of knowledge and then it becomes relevant for your own notion.
again the difference is in the meaning of “Cease”. That Cease doesn’t mean annihilation.
What you explain seems a kidnapping of the sphere of nothingness to be a new nibbana. We find this issue in example in MN.106:
> “Then again, the disciple of the noble ones considers this: ‘Sensuality here & now; sensuality in lives to come; sensual perceptions here & now; sensual perceptions in lives to come; forms here & now; forms in lives to come; form-perceptions here & now; form-perceptions in lives to come; perceptions of the imperturbable: all are perceptions. Where they cease without remainder: that is peaceful, that is exquisite, i.e., the dimension of nothingness.’ Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension. There being full confidence, he either attains the dimension of nothingness now or else is committed to discernment. With the break-up of the body, after death, it’s possible that this leading-on consciousness of his will go to the dimension of nothingness. This is declared to be the first practice conducive to the dimension of nothingness.”
while the true nibbana is explained by the Buddha at the end:
*> “There is the case, Ananda, where a disciple of the noble ones considers this: ‘Sensuality here & now; sensuality in lives to come; sensual perceptions here & now; sensual perceptions in lives to come; forms here & now; forms in lives to come; form-perceptions here & now; form-perceptions in lives to come; perceptions of the imperturbable; perceptions of the dimension of nothingness; perceptions of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception: that is an identity, to the extent that there is an identity. This is deathless: the liberation of the mind through lack of clinging/sustenance.’”
and then we find this paradox: what you identifies like the definitive nibbana (parinibbana) it is the description of the -self delusion ambit of a nothingness. While for the arhant who still is not complete in his goal according your view, we find the nibbana like the freedom of the clinging/sustenance without the annihilation of Reality as it was taught by the Buddha.
From here there is a simple choosing at least in practical terms: at the moment of death one could aspire to that nothingness or also to the freedom from clinging/sustenance. And the consequences are obvious: from the roots in an aspiration to a nothingness, a nothingness could arise. While from the roots in the freedom from the clinging/sustenance, a freedom from the clinging/sustenance could arise.
And the issue is when logically, to sustain a nothingness only a blank or unconsciousness ambit is requested. While to sustain the freedom from the clinging/sustenance, an annihilation is not possible to give sense to that freedom.
IMHO the discovery of the Buddha was not a place to go named nibbana but the way to escape from the Wheel. And this is rooted in the freedom of clinging instead the annihilation of Reality. Therefore, this is not about what could be the “final truth” because such thing doesn’t exist. There is the way to escape from birth and dukkha or no. A nothingness can become a destiny as also the freedom from the clinging to any Reality.
Each person will discern what’s better according understanding and goals or maybe the kamma.
I leave here because the difference in that notion is enough clarified at least to me
This is not new, classical Theravada has been preserving this for thousands of years.
We are repeating things by now, since you didn’t want to read all the past post.
Sphere of nothingness still has perception. Then go further perception is mostly gone for neither perception nor non perception, then go further is ending of perception and feeling.
That cessation of perception and feeling is temporary samadhi for arahants and non returner while alive and in that, there is no mind. But after the arahants die, it’s no longer temporary.
There’s 9 levels of nothingness, so just using the term nothingness can be inaccurate philosophically speaking, unless one is clear about which level it is. Parinibbāna is the highest level.
What does it mean that there is no mind? What exactly is gone?
No feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness.
No experience, no knowledge, no mental objects that can be sensed by the mind because of no mind to sense it. No 6 sense consciousness, as they are all part of consciousness and thus part of mind.
Classical Theravada doesn’t say Nibbana is nothingness Bhante. They say it’s a truly existing thing. Ven. Dhammapala also adds that it’s filled with light. Saying that nibbana is cessation is explicitly denied in the Visuddhimagga. The Sarvastivadins also said said nibbana was a true existent. It’s just beyond comprehension for these traditions. It was the Sautrantika who argued that nibbana is complete nothingness, that final Nibbana is a “true death”.
But that is also under narcosis, in deep dreamless sleep, unconscious. But then we do not say that this is person without mind, or mind has ceased at that moment. So what does the cessation of mind really mean?
Well, it should be deeper than that then.
Anyway,
Really?
I asked in the classical Theravada forum,
They affirm the same view.
I asked the teachers here at Na Uyana, a known very classical Theravada monastery, they affirm the same view. Many times, in different ways. I asked about nibbāna being existent in Abhidhamma, they say it’s not a something, don’t misunderstand.
Could it be that there are different groups in classical Theravada with different views on this?
Seems the Classical Theravadins need to better read their classical texts. As I say, the Visuddhimagga denies that Nibbana is simply cessation. Its something, filled with light according to commentary.
But how? Again, what does it really mean that mind has ceased in sannavedayitanirodha? What has ceased now?
The sutta’s are really not vague about Nibbana, i feel. Nibbana is positively described as the Peak of Peace, Peace of Heart, or as sublime state of supreme peace. Extinguishment of defilements with love and wisdom, results naturally in peace of heart.
Nibbana is an open and sensitive warm living heart at ease, also meeting death, sickness, conflicts, decay, etc. This peace of heart is what the Buddha lost meeting the sick, the corpse, the old man. It was what the Buddha sought and what he found (MN26)
This peace is called everlasting in the sutta’s and Nibbana an imperishable state.
Must one reify peace, turn it into something? Ach…i think we can all admit that we have no peace of heart, or at best some conditional peace, based upon this and that, but very vulnerable. Our peace of heart, if its there, it can disappear any moment when our situation changes. Such unstable peace, like also jhana, cannot be the goal of Dhamma.
The peace of Nibbana can also not result from some forced attitude, proces of conceiving, or use of skills such as vipassana, i believe. I have seen some belief this, i do not. If an arahant still has to apply vipassana to have peace of heart, and is still liable to loose peace of heart when he/she does not, i feel that cannot be true.
Nibbana cannot be owned
To the extent there is nothing; there has always been nothing.
To the extent there is something; there has always been something;
To the extent there is nothing; there is nothing right now.
To the extent there is something; there is something right now.
To the extent there is nothing; there will always be nothing.
To the extent there is something; there will always be something.
There is no nothingness nor is there somethingness.
There is no lack of nothingness nor any lack of somethingness.
Neither nothing nor something apply to any past moment.
Neither nothing nor something apply to this present moment.
Neither nothing nor something apply to any future moment.
All past moments are full of nothingness and full of somethingness.
The present moment is full of nothingness and full of somethingness.
All future moments are full of nothingness and full of somethingness.
Babble… babble… babble…
there is not such continuity without more things to say. The cessation of perception and feeling is described like a situation similar to a dead corpse, although with the vital signs still working:
“In the case of a monk who has died & passed away, his bodily fabrication has ceased & subsided, verbal fabrication has ceased & subsided, mental fabrication has ceased & subsided, his life force is totally ended, his heat is dissipated, and his faculties are shut down. But in the case of a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling, his bodily fabrication has ceased & subsided, verbal fabrication has ceased & subsided, mental fabrication has ceased & subsided, his life force is not ended, his heat is not dissipated, and his faculties are bright & clear. This is the difference between a monk who has died & passed away and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling.”
- SN.41.6
please, continue reading that Sutta to know what happens after the decay of that state:
“When a monk is emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, mental fabrications arise first, then bodily fabrications, then verbal fabrications.”
“When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the signless, & contact with the undirected.”
it says the mental, bodily and verbal fabrications will arise again. However, instead that activity can give rise to the common proliferation and clinging to -self, the detachment trend acquired in the cessation of perception & feeling makes possible a situation in where nibbana become the only logical destiny.
That is, that state is still a -self delusion ambit also impermanent and with decay. Although due to its refinement regarding the absence of clinging, it makes possible that after its decay the subsequent arising of fabrications becomes quickly realized like anatta, and then nibbana is just there.
This is another ambit of delusion of -self although in its more refined possibility. However, we check how the fabrications arise again. It means that this state is not part of some progressive annihilation of Reality until a nothingness. When the fabrications arise again, then anatta is realized and nibbana arise. Because without anatta there is no nibbana. And logically, it should exit atta (fabrications) in order to realize anatta.
If that previous acquired trend of -self detachment in that state wouldn’t exist, the arising of fabrications would cause attachment to the -self again in all the extent. Although these are quickly realized as anatta and nibbana without the annihilation of that Reality-fabrications.
Therefore, that state is not part of a progressive annihilation of Reality but this is a progressive annihilation of clinging. The fabrications arise again after the end of that state, and this arising is even necessary or nibbana wouldn’t be possible.
this contradicts the Suttas as soon we remember that there is arhanthood by wisdom, by touching with the body, and by both ways. And in the arhanthood through wisdom, the abiding in the state of cessation of perception & feeling is not present, while the goal is fulfilled anyway.
In fact, the commented obsession to avoid a luminosity in nibbana (DN.11) it shows an atta substantiation of nibbana: because it should be a nothingness instead a luminosity. While the Buddha teaching is about freedom from clinging. This cannot be covered with bizarre Scholar arguments like upanishadic influences and such things,
That obsession to avoid a luminosity it lacks of sense because it could be present or not. In the case of a contemplation of consciousness as consciousness, the viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ can be manifest like a luminosity being its nibbana aspect. While in the case of contemplation of sense consciousness, the viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ can be be manifest like the anatta of dhammas being its nibbana aspect.
In both cases the viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ will be present like the true nature of the nibbana freedom without clinging/sustenance.
There is no nibbana like a nothingness place to go in where the Reality is annihilated. If the nibbana freedom exist without a decay, this is because there is also a Wheel without decay. The Reality cannot be annihilated because nibbana is freedom of clinging, without a beginning or an end. And it means the annihilation of Reality into a nothingness is not possible. Is this not obvious?
Namo Buddhaya!
Does this not fit?
The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives [things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as ‘mine,’ he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.
"He perceives water as water… fire as fire… wind as wind[1] … beings as beings… gods as gods…Pajapati as Pajapati…Brahma as Brahma… the luminous gods as luminous gods… the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory… the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit… the Conqueror as the Conqueror[2] … the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space… the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness… the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness… the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception[3] … the seen as the seen… the heard as the heard… the sensed as the sensed… the cognized as the cognized[4] … singleness as singleness… multiplicity as multiplicity[5] … the All as the All[6] …
"He perceives Unbinding as Unbinding.[7] Perceiving Unbinding as Unbinding, he conceives things about Unbinding, he conceives things in Unbinding, he conceives things coming out of Unbinding, he conceives Unbinding as ‘mine,’ he delights in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.
The Trainee
"A monk who is a trainee — yearning for the unexcelled relief from bondage, his aspirations as yet unfulfilled — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, let him not conceive things about earth, let him not conceive things in earth, let him not conceive things coming out of earth, let him not conceive earth as ‘mine,’ let him not delight in earth. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.
"He directly knows water as water… fire as fire… wind as wind… beings as beings… gods as gods… Pajapati as Pajapati… Brahma as Brahma… the luminous gods as luminous gods… the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory… the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit… the Conqueror as the Conqueror… the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space… the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness… the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness… the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception… the seen as the seen… the heard as the heard… the sensed as the sensed… the cognized as the cognized… singleness as singleness… multiplicity as multiplicity… the All as the All…
"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, let him not conceive things about Unbinding, let him not conceive things in Unbinding, let him not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, let him not conceive Unbinding as ‘mine,’ let him not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you. Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence
Or this?
- "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I > have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: ‘A nihilist[38] is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.’[39]
"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: ‘A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.’
"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering. Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile
Or this?
- Doctrines of Nibbāna Here and Now (Diṭṭhadhammanibbānavādā): Views 58–62
“There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of Nibbāna here and now and who, on five grounds, proclaim Nibbāna here and now for an existent being. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honourable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?
“Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine or view: ‘When this self, good sir, furnished and supplied with the five strands of sense pleasures, revels in them—at this point the self attains supreme Nibbāna here and now.’ In this way some proclaim supreme Nibbāna here and now for an existent being.
“To him another says: ‘There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self attains supreme Nibbāna here and now. What is the reason? Because, good sir, sense pleasures are impermanent, suffering, subject to change, and through their change and transformation there arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. But when the self, quite secluded from sense pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, enters and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by initial and sustained thought and contains the rapture and happiness born of seclusion—at this point, good sir, the self attains supreme Nibbāna here and now.’ In this way others proclaim supreme Nibbāna here and now for an existent being.
“To him another says: ‘There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self attains supreme Nibbāna here and now. What is the reason? Because that jhāna contains initial and sustained thought; therefore it is declared to be gross. But when, with the subsiding of initial and sustained thought, the self enters and abides in the second jhāna, which is accompanied by internal confidence and unification of mind, is free from initial and sustained thought, and contains the rapture and happiness born of concentration—at this point, good sir, the self attains supreme Nibbāna here and now.’ In this way others proclaim supreme Nibbāna here and now for an existent being.
“To him another says: ‘There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self attains supreme Nibbāna here and now. What is the reason? It is declared to be gross because of the mental exhilaration connected with rapture that exists there. But when, with the fading away of rapture, one abides in equanimity, mindful and clearly comprehending, and still experiencing happiness with the body, enters and abides in the third jhāna, so that the ariyans announce: “He abides happily, in equanimity and mindfulness”—at this point, good sir, the self attains supreme Nibbāna here and now.’ In this way some proclaim supreme Nibbāna here and now for an existent being.
“To him another says: ‘There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self attains supreme Nibbāna here and now. What is the reason? It is declared to be gross because a mental concern, ‘Happiness,’ exists there. But when, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the disappearance of previous joy and grief, one enters and abides in the fourth jhāna, which is without pleasure and pain and contains purification of mindfulness through equanimity—at this point, good sir, the self attains supreme Nibbāna here and now.’ In this way some proclaim supreme Nibbāna here and now for an existent being.
“This, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata understands … and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak.
“It is on these five grounds, bhikkhus, that these recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of Nibbāna here and now proclaim supreme Nibbāna here and now for an existent being. Whatever recluses or brahmins proclaim supreme Nibbāna here and now for an existent being, all of them do so on these five grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.
“This, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata understands … and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak.
“It is on these forty-four grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the future and hold settled views about the future assert various conceptual theorems referring to the future. Whatever recluses or brahmins, bhikkhus, are speculators about the future, hold settled views about the future, and assert various conceptual theorems referring to the future, all of them do so on these forty-four grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.
“This, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata understands … and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak.
“It is on these sixty-two grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the past, speculators about the future, and speculators about the past and the future together, who hold settled views about the past and the future, assert various conceptual theorems referring to the past and the future SuttaCentral
Or this
“He may not regard form as self … … or self as in consciousness, but he holds such a view as this: ‘That which is the self is the world; having passed away, that I shall be—permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change.’ That eternalist view is a formation….
“He may not regard form as self … or hold such an eternalist view, but he holds such a view as this: ‘I might not be, and it might not be for me; I will not be, and it will not be for me.’ That annihilationist view is a formation….
“He may not regard form as self … or hold such an annihilationist view, but he is perplexed, doubtful, indecisive in regard to the true Dhamma. Sn22.81
There are many more texts that discuss wrong views pertaining to parinibbana, like whether tathagata exists after parinibbana or not.
However there can certainly exist verifiably wrong theories about what a back hole is and you do not need a description of “the inside” to explain that it’s not a place you can go into like a supermarket.
And it is important to understand how to think about these things and how not to think these things to conceive of it correctly.
Nibbana as it is explained is very important to not misapprehend, if one conceives of it wrongly then one would not be motivated & incentivized properly. He could never incline the mind to the unconstructed by giving it frequent attention because he would in doing so be giving attention to something else as the real thing is not in his range.
I think you are mixing up nibbāna with remainder and nibbāna without remainder, as it is common for those who argue of something left after parinibbāna to do.
When arahants is still alive, the cessation attainment is temporary. When there’s no more body, dead, there’s no condition at all for anything to arise again.
Given that cessation of perception and feeling is already a great nothing with only the possibility of arising left, can parinibbāna be a more something compared to this? Makes no sense, makes more sense to say that even the possibility of arising is gone for parinibbāna.
You also might have a bit of reification of parinibbāna as something.
Yes, for wisdom liberated arahants, there’s no need to attain for cessation samadhi, but it doesn’t invalidate the reasoning above.
Do you agree that in the arising of nibbana there is a Cease of Consciousness?
If you agree, then:
From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/ sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."
SN.12.011
from here there are only two options: that understanding of the word “Cease” is not right, or you mean the nibbana was not real for the arhant.
And in the second case it means a fundamental contradiction with the Buddha teaching
I believe you are thinking in materialist terms instead in the transcendental terms of the Buddha teaching. Read:
- “Are you a human being?”
- “No, brahman, I am not a human being.”
[…]
"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba… a yakkha… a human being: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.
- An.4.36
the human being arise because these fermentations, moment after moment. I believe that if one continues to think in the worldly materialist deluded terms, the Buddha teaching cannot be rightly understood.
We know that we have an experience of the Reality in these terms, although precisely the purposes of the Buddha teaching is to leave these terms.
I also tend to see it that way. Ofcourse there is Paticca Samuppada in this very life. This also means that grasping an existence also happens in this very life. But i think i see that other buddhist here feel that this introduces an esoteric element that they do not like.
Do you also believe that human bhava is not something fixed at birth but the Buddha, while alive, had allready transcended human bhava or even any bhava? And this is what bhava-nirodha really means?
Now one can at will enter different bhava’s.
i also believe that while in jhana mind has in fact entered or realised another bhava. One really experiences what it is to be like to have a certain deva bhava. How do you see this?
There is not really something like a human mind. How do you see this?
I believe that this possibility of re-arising sankhara’s (when leaving sannavedayitanirodha) shows mind is not gone in that state, because mind is the forerunner of arising sankhara’s (dhp1)
Do sankhara’s arise without mind?