SuttaCentral
Hold on now 
I would suggest caution with ascribing certain behaviours to ariyas only. I’ve seen plenty of regular folks be unbothered by their mistakes being made public. 
Making guesses like this is a bit of a dangerous game for most of us. Paraphrasing Ajahn Brahmali, we can only trust that the Buddha was fully enlightened. With everyone else, we can never be 110% certain. And maybe that’s enough.
I found that the visuddhimagga supports the concept that nibbana is eternal
Vism chapter 7
Nibbána, whose individual essence is eternal, deathless, the refuge, the shelter,
etc., is well proclaimed too in being proclaimed to have an individual essence that
is eternal, and so on.
One can always find evidence to support whatever ideas one wants to have. This is the normal way we all live - we find and like the things that resonate with our preferences and desires.
In my opinion, the trick to seeing something new or challenging, like what the Buddha is pointing at, is to relinquish and give up any ideas and preferences and desires one has, and to see it with fresh, non-intellectual eyes, and ‘unattached’ mind, by using Samadhi as the vehicle to do this. Just something to consider 
I think it’s important to consider context. In the above, the word Nibbana is used in the first sense that I shared in my earlier post. This is much harder to conceptualise and thus inform ones practice.But it is useful to at least theoretically understand the mechanics of realisation. It gets at the very heart of how the mind works. If we imagine an alien species capable of full colour vision yet everything in their world is shades of blue, they would not know colour blue. At least not in the sense that we know blue.
From what I have seen in this forum, most people use the word Nibbana in the second sense that I mentioned.
One or both can be used to inform ones practice. As long as one is doing the right things, right results will follow.
That is incorrect:
“Monks, I will also teach you permanence and the path leading to permanence …"
That is not the passage, this is the passage
Sn43.14
1.1Dhuvañca vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi dhuvagāmiñca maggaṁ. 1.2Taṁ suṇātha. Katamañca, bhikkhave, dhuvaṁ …pe….
1.1the constant … 1.2
https://suttacentral.net/sn43.14-43/pli/ms
sn43.14(most Venerable Thanissaro)
“Monks, I will also teach you permanence and the path leading to permanence …
The important keyword here is Dhuvañca which means constant/permanent/changeless
Even if you use suttacentral dictionary it can mean permanent and there’s no difference between constant and permanent it’s just synonym
As we see that the terms “stability” is virtually the opposite of impermanence furthermore we can say that the opposite of “constant” is impermanence or inconstant this shows how genius Ven sujato is
I think this is the strongest proof that consciousness is nibbana
dn11.85
where consciousness is signless, boundless, all-luminous, that’s where earth, water, fire, and air find no footing,
there both long and short, small and great, fair and foul-
there “name-and-form” (mental and physical phenomena] are wholly destroyed.
with the cessation of consciousness, this is all destroyed.
Hmmm, how come? In the last sentence it precisely talks about cessation of consciousness…
I read the suttas to know my folly and delusions.
I would not seek proof in the suttas. Kurt Goedel was much smarter than I and he proved that there are unprovable truths. Pursuing proof is therefore unsatisfactory.
For certainty, I meditate.
DN34:1.2.23: What one thing should be produced?
DN34:1.2.24: Unshakable knowledge.
Yes I think you are right here but if this is the case then cessation of consciousness itself Is nibbana because that state is higher than consciousness
This is the sutta that base my assumption
Snp3.12
athāparaṁ etadavoca satthā:
This is what the Buddha said. Having said this, the Teacher, the Sublime One, said further:“Yaṁ kiñci dukkhaṁ sambhoti,
Whatever suffering arises in the world,Sabbaṁ viññāṇapaccayā;
All is caused by consciousness.Viññāṇassa nirodhena,
With the cessation of consciousness,Natthi dukkhassa sambhavo.
There is no arising of suffering.
Remember that some suttas conflict with each others in that case we need visuddhimagga to know which sutta the visuddhimagga sides with
I have found no suttas that conflict with each other.
I have found suttas that conflict with me, so I gave up me.
Consciousness itself is not nibbana. We can talk about ignorant consciousness and consciousness that has reached nibbana. Ignorant consciousness attaches and clings to name-form, but consciousness that has reached nibbana has gained freedom and is described as non-manifestative consciousness (it does not cling to name-form because it has clearly seen the three characteristics of everything).
In the discourses, there are better ways of describing non-self than the statement:
For example, in the Phagguna Sutta (SN 12.12), someone asks the Buddha (in reference to feeling), “But who, Venerable One, is it that feels?” and the Buddha says: “This question is not proper," "I do not teach that there is one who feels. If I were to speak of one who feels, then it would be fitting to ask who feels. If however the question is put thus: ‘What is a condition for feeling?’ And a fitting answer to this would be: ‘contact is a condition for feeling.’
This issue is relevant to ALL five of the aggregates (as explained in the above sutta). All aggregates happen due to causes and they arise and pass away – i.e., there is no unchanging entity to be found in any of the constantly changing aggregates (and this includes the continuously changing observer). In other words, there is no owner for these constantly changing aggregates. Further, in the discourse Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59), the Buddha describes how the aggregates cannot be taken as self because if it were self, we could compel the aggregates and wish them to be like this and not that, etc.
Here, it is also important to take into consideration the differentiation of conventional and ultimate truths. Conventional truth is about the agreed upon ways (conditioned ways) we jointly talk about the world (regarding existing people and things). Ultimate reality however, is about the deep dhamma teachings and includes things like how the five aggregates manifest moment-by-moment, the three characteristics, etc.
Finally, regarding clinging to nibbana – in the Alagaddupama (MN: 22), the Buddha compares the practice to a raft that one can use to “cross the river” (to reach enlightenment) – one needs to cling to the raft at the beginning, but needs to let it go after finishing the practice.
SN 12.13-14 and SN 12.71-81 (= SA 352-354) mention these words: “Dhamme, dhammānaṃ samudayaṃ, dhammānaṃ nirodhaṃ, dhammānaṃ nirodhagāminiṃ paṭipadhaṃ (= 法，法集、法滅、法滅道跡)” (SN ii, pp. 14-16, 129-130).
So, nibbana is also described as the cessation of dhamma “dhammānaṃ nirodhaṃ” (法滅).
For example mn111 said you can do vippassana while in cessation of perception and feeling while mn64 said that the highest state which you can do vippassana is the dimension of nothingness
Mn111 is in conflict with dn9 too which said that knowledge arises after perception arises, in cessation attainment there’s no perception at all not even perception of perception exists there, so it’s impossible that knowledge can arise there but mn111 said while in cessation attainment sariputta gained insight/knowledge
Furthermore mn111 is in conflict with mn44 which stated that one is not aware when they emerge from that state while mn111 said one mindfully emerges from the state
Furthermore mn111 is in conflict with mn74 which stated that sariputta gained arahantship while hearing buddha’s dhamma while mn111 stated that sariputta gained arahantship while in cessation of perception and feeling
Mn74
Tena kho pana samayena āyasmā sāriputto bhagavato piṭṭhito ṭhito hoti bhagavantaṁ bījayamāno.
Now at that time Venerable Sāriputta was standing behind the Buddha fanning him.Atha kho āyasmato sāriputtassa etadahosi:
Then he thought,“tesaṁ tesaṁ kira no bhagavā dhammānaṁ abhiññā pahānamāha, tesaṁ tesaṁ kira no sugato dhammānaṁ abhiññā paṭinissaggamāhā”ti.
“It seems the Buddha speaks of giving up and letting go all these things through direct knowledge.”Iti hidaṁ āyasmato sāriputtassa paṭisañcikkhato anupādāya āsavehi cittaṁ vimucci.
Reflecting like this, Venerable Sāriputta’s mind was freed from the defilements by not grasping.
so it’s not one but four suttas that mn111 is in conflict with, note that even bhante @sujato said that mn111 is suspect I don’t know whether his view have changed or not, I hope he out of compassion can shade light to us regarding this serious problem his non presence in this thread actually makes me sad and increases my suffering
Because I don’t find a way to solve this I resort to visuddhimagga and Ven buddhaghosa said there that not even you do vippassana in first jhana, this means the visuddhimagga sides more with the four suttas instead of mn111
Yes I think nibbana with effluent is a state of mind(freed mind) while I think we can call nibbana without effluent as a state of where mind don’t arise for eternity because mind arises and falls every single day if there’s a state where mind falls and don’t arise again forever we can call it nibbana without effluent so nibbana without effluent is a permanent state of no mind or permanent non arising of mind I think mind will continue to arise and cease for eternity as long as the fuel exists and that fuel is craving
This is the sutta which I base my assumption
Sn12.61
But an uneducated ordinary person would be better off taking this body made up of the four primary elements to be their self, rather than the mind. Why is that? This body made up of the four primary elements is seen to last for a year, or for two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, or a hundred years, or even longer.But that which is called ‘mind’ or ‘sentience’ or ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another all day and all night. It’s like a monkey moving through the forest. It grabs hold of one branch, lets it go, and grabs another; then it lets that go and grabs yet another. In the same way, that which is called ‘mind’ or ‘sentience’ or ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another all day and all night.
This means your mind now is radically different from your mind yesterday notice that buddha said not even the same mind ceases each day which means or implies that not only mind ceases and arises every single day the mind also undergoes radical changes in that very day so it becomes completely different before it ceases in that very day
So body A arises then that very body A ceases and it arises again in future life as body B after say 70 years or whatever but mind is very different than the body, mind A arises then it changes to mind B before it ceases and it arises as mind C the next day
Another insight I get from the sutta is it seems to me that the body can’t sustained radical changes body always disolves before it completely changes itself yes DNA mutates but it never mutates into a completely different entity on the other hand mind can sustain radical changes into a completely different mind before it ceases
So not only body last longer than mind they change slowly too compared to the mind and body can only say undergoing 99% change before it ceases while mind always undergoes more than 100% change before it ceases
And the change rate of mind is much higher than the body, the mind undergoes more change in an hour than the body in a year
They have this notion of lower self and higher self and lower self can suffer due to the decision made by higher self and whatever the higher self did it’s good on long term basis for the lower self even though it suffers the lower self
I think it’s obvious that all dhamma are conditioned, isn’t it ?
Yes, all dhammas are conditioned phenomena, not ultimate realities and entities.
If that’s true why did the buddha refuse to call nibbana as self ?
I just want another perspective
Am I wrong to say that self is dhamma too ?
I think self (atta) is a conditioned phenomenon (dhamma), according to SN/SA suttas.
Self, being not real, arises by conditions; having arisen it ceases completely by conditions. It is a result of previous action, but there is no doer.
Cf. SA 335: “Emptiness in its Ultimate Meaning”.
Pages 95-6 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (155.3 KB)
Yes I think I start to find the whole truth here, thanks friend, am I wrong to say that it’s the self that craves or do you think if self can still exist without craving at all ?
Thanks
