Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
You offer a good point here.
Again, I think it comes down to a different understanding and interpretation of the teachings.
For example, asaṅkhāta can be understood to describe arahantship or possibly parinibbāna, but that doesn’t mean it’s an ineffable "something’ and not cessation.
You may wish to see the the discussion at:
This, in turn, also comes down to the interpretations of words like dhatu and āyatana, which have many connotations and meanings. Some people cite these words when used in the context of the “unconditioned”/ nibbāna to point to an everlasting “knowing” or “indescribable something.”
Others understand these terms within the overall teachings and contexts as not inconsistent with full cessation.
In AN3.47, one might understand "“The unconditioned has these three characteristics. What three? No arising is evident, no vanishing is evident, and no change while persisting is evident. These are the three characteristics of the unconditioned” as being an everlasting “something” or as full cessation, which would of course be free of all characteristics – and yet also not be a “something.”
Also, just for consideration, in AN10.29 the Buddha says the view of the annihilationists is "the best of the convictions of outsiders, that is: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’
Again, this is certainly a wrong view, but why would the Buddha call it “the best” wrong view if final nibbāna is an everlasting “something”?
AFAIK, there are no suttas in which the Buddha said the same for any eternalist views – of anything.
This doesn’t prove the point. But it does indirectly point to cessation – without the self/soul stuff.