I agree. The same with meditation. The claim that absorbed states are “Wrong Samadhi” doesn’t follow, since what makes Jhana “right or wrong” is not the experience but in how it’s viewed according to the suttas.
at least not my intention to convince anyone but to understand what other people try to mean.
Those threads you recommend are not helpful to understand this point
I try to explain the source of this doubt:
"And these six sense-bases, O monks, what is their source…? The six sense-bases have mind-and-body as their source and origin…
And this mind-and-body, O monks, what is its source…? Mind-and-body has consciousness as its source and origin.…
And this consciousness, O monks, what is its source…? Consciousness has kamma-formations as its source and origin…"
[…]
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
we can read “From the cessation of consciousness comes…” until the end.
It seems you defend there is another state of cessation of consciousness beyond what the DO explain: a nothingness only possible after death. Before death, the people could experience nibbana but still this wouldn’t include a true Cease of Consciousness. And you wrote the phrase “end of mind-sense” for parinibbana.
Just I have asked if you mean the same “Cease of Consciousness”. Because logically one can check this is realized with nibbana in life according the D.O. Therefore, I ask about if you try to mean a different thing with a cease of the “mind sense”.
It is the same Cease of Consciouness of the D.O, or a different thing?
Do you mean the residue is conditioning the nature of nibbana, and therefore the parinibanna will have a different nature with a “complete cease of consciousness”?
Those who view paranibbana as basically the atheist understanding of death don’t pay much heed to nibbana realized in life. They view it as conditioned and dukkha. Rather, they just look forward to death and bide their time until. 
1 Like
Hi Yeshe,
I don’t know where you got this impression āvuso, but it’s not really accurate.
Rather, what the people you’re referring to are saying is that awakening is fundamentally important to end the cycle or rebirths and greatly relieves dukkha – but that final nibbāna with the final death is the complete ending of all dukkha.
Not so.
As in Thag17.2:
"“I don’t long for death;
I don’t long for life;
I will lay down this body,
aware and mindful.
Hello Jasudho, I was not referring to you as someone who equates paranibbana with the atheist understanding of death as I did not know you so identified. My understanding of your understanding is quite different from what I understand to be the atheist understanding of death 
Anyway, the idea that paranibbana is the atheist understanding of death necessarily leaves nibbana realized in life as something very different and very diminished compared to paranibbana. They are of an entirely different nature, right? It isn’t possible to conceive of the atheist understanding of death as actually accomplished or realized in life. It can only occur with death.
It is rather like nibbana in life is just the atheist understanding that death is coming while paranibbana is actual death. Well, obviously understanding that death is coming and actual death are of two different natures entirely. 
Seeing nibbana realized in life as some sort of foreknowledge of a guaranteed atheist understanding of death really relegates it to a second class nibbana. It isn’t really any release from suffering and is conditioned and dukkha as compared to paranibbana which is seen as a real release from suffering and the end of dukkha. This is what I was getting at…
This does surprise me. I thought you viewed paranibbana as something that is to be strived for, right? If so, then how is it wrong to say that, “they just look forward to death and bide their time until.” Or are you making a distinction between a stream enterer (who does look forward) and someone after nibbana realized in life who has had foreknowledge of paranibbana but doesn’t “look forward?” Maybe you object to “look forward”… would it be more accurate to say that they live passively biding their time until death according to the atheist understanding?
1 Like
Using words like “atheist understanding” don’t apply.
The materialists (atheists as you appear to call them) see death as cessation, but have a view of self and do not believe in rebirth and transmigration.
Very different from practitioners, particularly stream winners and other Noble ones, who accept/know rebirth and who have no attachment to self-view.
Not really. Awakening, the realization of nibbāna while alive, the end of all defilements, is wondrous and precious – along with the understanding of the final cessation of all dukkha at death.
Both are liberating and blissful – though not in the way we usually understand bliss. As in AN9.34.
It’s just that the senses and aggregates are still present with nibbāna with residue and not with nibbāna without residue at parinibbāna. As in Iti44.
So there’s a kind of distinction in this way.
No, because of the peace and reduction of much dukkha with nibbāna while alive compared to the stresses of the atheist and also, again, because of the ending of rebirth, (while the atheist will continue in saṁsāra.)
Significant differences.
Too much maññati.
The suttas speak of the subtle peace of nibbāna while still alive.
Not so. One has some desire for awakening while on the Path, a motivation to practice for liberation, at least initially. What takes over is nibbidā, as the mind naturally inclines away from ignorance, craving, and all forms of dukkha.
Correct, as it implies craving.
2 Likes
I didn’t introduce those words to the thread. Was just adopting the words of others who seem to identify their own views of paranibbana as closely related to an atheists understanding of death.
The rest of your post just confirms to me what I already thought; you don’t have such a view that “the atheist understanding of death + trivial rebirth == paranibbana” so I don’t think there is any daylight between us on this topic.
Perhaps I didn’t communicate myself clearly, but I agree with @Jasudho whatever he said is the difference, I put it into the trivial as I thought it’s common knowledge already.
Nibbāna while alive is end of all mental suffering, how is it not awesome?
I think you may have a different understanding of consciousness. Arahants are certainly conscious.
Dependent cessation happens in stages. When ignorance ceases upon arahanthood, then the arahant has ceased volition which leads to kamma for future rebirth (but can still act while living), craving, clinging and becoming (according to classical Theravada, becoming here means new kamma that leads to rebirth). Since they do not disappear upon enlightenment, it’s clear that they have the 5 aggregates still, so consciousness, name and form, 6 sense bases, contact, feelings are still there for the arahant and only upon final death, with no more rebirths does the rest of these ceases without remainder.
1 Like
After seeing people with different views on Nibbāna, thinking that they are a stream winner, I see that this is part of a view which can lead to wrong liberation, which means it should be included in wrong view as wrong view leads to wrong liberation.
It’s scary that even this kind of subtle view of the nature of parinibbāna is relevant to get the direction right.
My guide for testing who’s not a stream winner is to just ask them: is there nothing or something after parinibbāna.
Can a person who is not at least a stream enterer even be sure that their understanding of nibbana is correct? Can a person who doesn’t yet know for themselves what nibbana really is say that the views they have about Nibbana are really the right views?
And is it really possible to test others for their right understanding of nibbana without first having such a right understanding for yourself, without at least having been a stream enterer?
1 Like
So, basically, this is a personal view of yours. Okay, that’s fine. Everyone has their opinions. I was just curious.
Discussions like the one in this thread remind me of the parable of the hen brooding her eggs. If she doesn’t brood them properly, they don’t hatch. If she does it properly, then they will hatch. It doesn’t really matter whether she thinks it will happen in either case. It’s the actual brooding that makes it happen. Similarly, a person who trains properly will be liberated. What they think will happen has little to do with it. I wish people would care about those types of suttas instead of getting wrapped up in ideological arguments, but such are people. They love to argue about ideas. I feed squirrels as a pass-time, and I sometimes wish they wouldn’t chase each other away jealously. But they are squirrels; it’s what they do. People are not much different.
There are a couple views about Nirvana discussed in the Katthavatthu. That is about all I can find that is actually a Theravada position on the subject. You might want to investigate it so that you can think about it a little more clearly. Mainly, there are positions that oppose the Pudgalavadin idea of a person who sheds the aggregates and goes to nirvana. It was a view that a a major school of Buddhism held, the Sammatiyas, I believe. They were popular in the heartland of India until Buddhism collapsed. Unfortunately, they didn’t have much contact with Buddhists outside of India, so next to nothing of their canon has survived to judge them by. We just have polemics in texts like the Katthavatthu and Vijnanakaya.
2 Likes
Namo Buddhaya!
Except Buddha criticized wrong views very harshly saying a person like this has no way of training correctly
He went to the Buddha, bowed, and sat down to one side. The Buddha said to him, “Is it really true, Sāti, that you have such a harmful misconception: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another’?”
“Absolutely, sir. As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.”
“Sāti, what is that consciousness?”
“Sir, he is the speaker, the knower who experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms.” See MN 2:8.8.
“Silly man, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way? Haven’t I said in many ways that consciousness is dependently originated, since consciousness does not arise without a cause? But still you misrepresent me by your wrong grasp, harm yourself, and create much wickedness. This will be for your lasting harm and suffering.”
Then the Buddha said to the mendicants, “What do you think, mendicants? Has this mendicant Sāti kindled even a spark of ardor in this teaching and training?” See MN 22:7.3.
“How could that be, sir? No, sir.” When this was said, Sāti sat silent, dismayed, shoulders drooping, downcast, depressed, with nothing to say. SuttaCentral
Thanks for the clarification.
Ok, I’m confused again
As I understand your view, the aggregates are literally dukkha incarnate and while alive the mind still operates so how is it possible that, “Nibbāna while alive is end of all mental suffering?” In my naivete this seems wildly inconsistent.
You omitted the previous sentence which was, “similarly, a person who trains properly will be liberated.” Undoubtedly, this is the case even if the word properly is doing a lot of the work and thus @cdpatton’s point stands.
It is interesting that others think that in order to begin training properly one must first develop a detailed conceptual view of what the end result is. To my limited mind, this is pretty much exactly the opposite of what the Teacher intended.
I wonder when you think the Teacher himself gained stream entry?
I didn’t omit it. I was saying that it cannot happen that a person could neglect intellectual understanding and still train correctly.
Therefore when he says
What they think will happen has little to do with it if they train correctly.
Sure but training correctly narrows down what they think will happen to exclude incompatible wrong views.
Therefore when he says
What they think will happen has little to do with it if they train correctly.
He is essentially saying
It doesn’t matter what one who trains correctly thinks because they don’t hold pernicious wrong views
Which contradicts the general point he was making of describing a general disdain for discussing the subtle points & prying away from pernicious wrong views
Basically in as far as i can tell the sutta he quoted doesn’t support what he advovates.
Yes, you did. Your quote omitted the sentence I highlighted.
You have built a strawman and knocked it down while attributing to him speech that he did not make.
I didn’t include it for it is irrelevant. I can include it if you want.
I think he can tell me this himself if i didn’t understand him correctly.
Omission can have a moral connotation of intentionally leaving something out which would otherwise be relevant. For example if it was to serve me to exclude something as to make a strawman argument.
Which is what you are claiming that i did right
I find this to be very annoying because I think cdpatton has said something disagreeable and id like to discuss it. I don’t take it for granted that you can speak for him.
If i indeed did misunderstand him then there is a reason for that and i want to know whether he didn’t express himself correctly or maybe i misunderstood.
As i understood him he was saying the the discerepancy in views matters not if one is training correctly.
This is a very loose statement and i want to establish exact proper meaning without you jumping in to “illuminate things” by telling what i did & didn’t do
This is happening in your own mind. I did not intend any moral connotation nor was it suggested. It was a factually correct statement that you omitted it. You disputed that factually correct statement and said you did not so omit. My intention with the factually correct statement was to draw attention to the part that was omitted as I think it is relevant. You disagree that it is relevant, but this doesn’t change the fact that you omitted it.
Yes, you’ve made a strawman argument.
You are annoyed because you feel attacked. Again, this is happening in your own mind.
I think you misunderstood because you took his statements as an attack on you or directed at you as a participant in this thread. However, he was not responding to you and there was no reason for you to take his statements personally or as even about you.
I think it likely that when he said others in this thread were, “getting wrapped up in ideological arguments” you took that as a reference to you and were annoyed because you don’t consider your participation in this thread to be so characterized.
No, that’s not what he said. He said:
Similarly, a person who trains properly will be liberated. What they think will happen has little to do with it. I wish people would care about those types of suttas instead of getting wrapped up in ideological arguments, but such are people.