SuttaCentral
I think it is helpful here remembering the distinction between liberation while an arahat is alive, that is while the five khandha are operative, and a supposed state of eternal bliss - or whatever positive state of being - that a liberated mind might enjoy after death. It is in order to refute this latter possibility, I believe, that Ajahn Brahmali was reminding us of the ‘negative’ meaning of nibbana.
See e.g Iti 44
Indeed, but I think the crucial issue here is that these tendencies are precisely underlying. In other words, they are not always making their presence felt, but they will inevitably return unless they are eliminated. In deep samādhi they will be temporarily absent, only to return when you come out, usually taking that state of samādhi as its object.
Again, I prefer “freedom from the conditioned”. When the EBTs speak of nibbāna it almost invariably refers to the living experience of an arahant. The arahant is free from the conditioned in the sense that they have no craving or attachment. But they are still subject to phenomena in the sense that they are conditioned by what happens around them. They respond when spoken to, they eat when they are hungry, they feel physical pain because the body responds to external stimuli, etc. I do not know of any evidence from the EBTs that asaṅkhata refers to any “realm” or “element” beyond the ordinary experiences of the arahant.
Yes, and this liberation is precisely the being free from craving, etc. Just that and nothing more, as far as I can see. I like the sequence in MN59, where the highest happiness is the happiness of the cessation of perception and feeling. There is no need to bring in anything beyond this.
Ah, OK, that’s interesting. I had tended to assume that the sense of self is still present in the samadhis as an experiential fact, not just as a disposition that will manifest itself in experience only after emerging from samadhi. On this account, even the formless beings are actively suffering. Their suffering - like their sense of self - is highly subtle and attenuated, like a fine ripple disturbing a pond rather than the great storms and gross stresses we lesser beings feel, but it is still there disturbing what would otherwise be perfect peace.
By the way, you might be familiar with some recent psychological research on the self and ego construction that seems to point in the direction of a distinction between a sense of self and a robust self-concept. For example, in the rubber hand illusion, subjects can be stimulated to have an experience of an external object as part of their own body. The subject subjectively feels the rubber had to be “mine” And yet, they don’t really believe it is part of their body, and so don’t have the belief “that’s my hand”. So we might say that something like the same thing is true of the being in samadhi. For example, we might say the being who is in the first arupa state is in conscious contact with the base of that state - unbounded space - and is still clinging to it, and “feels” it to be something intimately related to themselves. And that’s why they are still suffering.
Yes, I tend to agree with your interpretation. But those who think otherwise make a great deal out of the passage in the Udana 8.3:
“There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned.”
I know many people interpret this passage as referring to some kind of eternal space in which conditioned things come to be and cease to be, or even as a “ground of being” out of which conditioned things emerge and then reflux as they decay. But I’m more inclined to see the passage as just saying something like “detachment from conditioning must be possible in order for their to be an escape from it.”
When i was looking for asankhata, found this discussion between Bharadwaja and beeblebrox in DW clear my doubt on the topic of ajaata, abhuuta, akata, asankhata.
Interestingly I have just came across the case of Venerable Upasena Vaṅgantaputta who would only fully ordain and take as disciples bhikkus who would - just as he used to do - accept to live in the forest, wear rags and eat only almsfood.
Ven. Upasena is recorded in the origin story of NP15 as being praised by the Buddha himself for doing so:
“When anyone asks me for the full ordination, Venerable Sir, I tell them this: ‘I dwell in the forest, I eat almsfood, and I wear rag-robes. If you, too, will dwell in the forest, eat almsfood, and wear rag-robes, I will give you the full ordination.’
If they agree, I ordain them; otherwise I don’t. And I do the same when anyone asks me for support. It’s in this way that I train my followers.”
“Good, Upasena, you train your followers well."
Dear Ajahn Brahmali, I really like this replacing “not” by “freedom from”. I always found it strange that the Buddha would have talked of deathless instead of birthless, but if we translate it freedom from death then it makes sense.
What about for anatta “freedom from self” instead of not-self which I also dislike very much?
The term freedom from goes very well with non-objectivation and instead of completion of a process. While no-self, deathless, etc. makes you believe there are objects.
The most important thing is the correct technique of meditation.
Silent retreats are great. but if they teach you the wrong meditation methods, then you won’t get anywhere.
Also, it is very pointless, when people that have not achieved any type of mental stillness have strong opinions about meditation. Right meditation is samadhi is jhana.
“The goal of this meditation is the beautiful silence,
stillness and clarity of mind” Ajahn Brahm : meditation a pdf file.
Yes, I think that would certainly be acceptable. But normally I use “freedom from” in conjunction with things that are negative, such as death or suffering, because you are free from something oppressive. An attā is not negative as such, and therefore I prefer something like "without self"or “void of self”.
Blockquote You are correct in saying that Ajahn Chah never used terms like ‘original mind’ or approved of using them.
Blockquote
I think he did use the term ‘original mind’
Yes. But that must be put in context both in Thai and in western Buddhism, where in the latter it’s not wise to promote the ‘original mind’ perspective. Thanissaro says broadly speaking the Thai forest tradition saw the mind primarily in terms of being subject to defilements:
" In the Thai Wilderness tradition, for instance, teachers frequently describe Dhamma practice as an attempt to outwit the defilements so as to end their obscuring influence in the mind. To practice, they say, is to learn how little you can trust the mind’s urges and ideas because they’re darkened with the defilement of delusion, whose darkness in turn can allow greed, aversion, and all the other derived defilements to grow. Only by questioning the mind’s urges and ideas can you free yourself from the
influence of these defilements, leaving the mind totally pure."
Welcome to the forum @rybka3 
A nice link you have posted, thank you
One thing I’ve noticed is that some terms have different connotations and usages in different traditions. It makes it tricky to differentiate exactly in what way it is being used, without being familiar with the context, or using it in different ways across different traditions. I guess the term ‘original mind’ is one of these terms.
with metta 
The talk in which he mentioned the Original Mind is “The path to peace”, which can be found in the link below.
Still not really sure what that term means there. If anyone can determine whether that term means eternal citta, please explain.
Here is a quote attributed to Ajahn Chah:
Within itself, the mind is already peaceful. But the mind is not peaceful these days because it follows moods, becomes agitated because moods deceive it. Sense impressions come and trick the mind into unhappiness, suffering, gladness and sorrow. But the mind’s true nature is none of these things. Gladness or sadness is not the mind but only a mood coming to deceive us. The untrained mind gets lost and follows them. It forgets itself and then we think that it is we who are upset or at ease or whatever. But really, this mind of ours is already unmoving and peaceful, really peaceful. So we must train the mind to know these sense impressions and not get lost in them. Just this is the aim of all of this difficult practice that we put ourselves through.
What is meant by the mind’s “true nature”? Is this quote saying that there is an unmoving, peaceful mind “within itself” at the same time as a mind following moods and being tricked by sense impressions? Does that mean that it is possible for one to go back through all one’s rebirths and arrive at a point where one’s mind is at it’s undefiled, it’s true nature?
This is the passage to which Ajahn Chah’s statements relate. Study of his teachings shows they are sutta-based :
“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming
defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn’t discern that
as it has come to be, which is why I tell you that—for the uninstructed
run-of-the-mill person—there is no development of the mind.”
“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming
defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as
it has come to be, which is why I tell you that—for the well-instructed
disciple of the noble ones—there is development of the mind.” — AN 1:51-
52
“The standard modern approach in interpreting these passages is to focus on
the first two sentences in each paragraph. The first sentence is read as implying
that the original nature of the mind is basically pure.”—Thanissaro (link above)
Analayo’s criticism of this text:
" From the viewpoint of this usage, it
could even seem as if the luminous mind was somehow in existence earlier
and the defilements are a sort of visitor that came later.62 The idea that a mental
defilement could somehow be set apart from the mind in which it occurs is to my
knowledge not attested anywhere else in the early discourses."
Basically Ajahn Chah is saying the practitioner should establish a still point from which to work, it’s less important whether this is thought of as ‘original mind’ or something which has been established, though the overwhelming opinion is it should be thought of as having to be established (MN 20). This gets to the question of which comes first, serenity or insight, and Ajahn Chah is a proponent of serenity as a basis, which is not surprising as the Thai school is jhana-based. The drawback of developing too much serenity is it can lead to lack of energy, and balance is required.
Here is the opposite case where insight precedes serenity:
“If I were to think & ponder in line with that even for a night… even for a day… even for a day & night, I do not envision any danger that would come from it, except that thinking & pondering a long time would tire the body. When the body is tired, the mind is disturbed; and a disturbed mind is far from concentration.’ So I steadied my mind right within, settled, unified, & concentrated it. Why is that? So that my mind would not be disturbed.”—MN 19
Very briefly, my understanding of the way he is using the term ‘Original Mind’ in that article is as the ‘undisturbed mind’, or the natural state of mind, the way mind is - without conditioning formations/sankharas. Basically just as Ven Nyanamoli Thera explains in the article you linked.
The issue with the use of the term is much as the OP stated
I don’t speak Thai, so I can’t be sure what exact words Ajahn Chah used originally, and how the translator chose to render them - this is an added level of complication 
However, in this case, it is not about some lasting essence of mind, (as it is used in some other traditions) but rather of mind as a functional means of processing sense contact, and thus creating our world view and sense of self, as well as things such as our perceptions of happiness and suffering.
In a broader context, when craving (and defilements) stop, then the mind rests in this undisturbed, still ‘state’. (Note the similie of the leaf being disturbed by the wind). It’s not a space, or realm, its just the result of processes, causes and conditions. When craving (and sense of self), is extinguished, there is nothing to keep this process going and cessation occurs at death. There is no Self that dies - just the processes have all come to a complete stop - no more agitation and craving to propel the processes further.
It is the liberation experienced during life, without craving and proliferations (cessation of craving and proliferations), that is called Nibbana.
I too found it very confusing to be confronted with contradictory teachings on this, from various respected Masters What has helped me is to 1) Become familiar with what the Buddha taught, ie go to the source of the Nikkayas rather than rely only on dhamma talks, so sutta central is the perfect place for this and 2) within meditation, both satipatana on the subject of mind (watching thoughts arise and cease, and the mechanism of movements of the mind, as well as samadhi and observing/being aware of the stillness of the mind. The Buddha taught that with practice one can see these things in operation for oneself, so it is not just a matter of having ‘faith’ in the words of others - see it for yourself. Just remember that the other 6 steps on the 8 fold Path are essential precursors in order to enable this.
All the best on your journey 
Added: This article may be of interest
https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/BSR/article/view/7139
This is a quote from Ajahn Maha Boowa about the Luminous Mind :
The original mind here refers to the origin of conventional realities, not to the origin of purity. The Buddha uses the term ‘pabhassaram’ — ‘pabhassaramidam cittam bhikkhave’ — which means radiant. It doesn’t mean pure. The way he puts it is absolutely right. There is no way you can fault it. Had he said that the original mind is pure, you could immediately take issue: ‘If the mind is pure, why is it born? Those who have purified their minds are never reborn. If the mind is already pure, why purify it?’ Right here is where you could take issue. What reason would there be to purify it? If the mind is radiant, you can purify it because its radiance is unawareness incarnate, and nothing else. Meditators will see clearly for themselves the moment the mind passes from radiance to mental release: Radiance will no longer appear. Right here is the point where meditators clearly know this, and it’s the point that lets them argue — because the truth has to be found true in the individual heart. Once a person knows, he or she can’t help but speak with full assurance.
Well said; what you wrote is quite poignant. The Buddha taught to abandon the 5 aggregates of clinging, to fully awaken and the 12 links of DO would cease. Yet he was still very much alive and used his senses and his mind, just with pure awareness and vast wisdom.
Yes, because in Buddhism ‘mind’ is just another of the senses, which arises on sense contact or thought, then ceases. Thought is not going on all the time, sometimes there is just body awareness.
Mind or thought arises at sense contact? How so?
Note that eye consciousness and mind consciousness are separate and mind consciousness arises in response to stimulus (which can be external or internal):
"As soon as a visible object has entered the range of vision, it acts on the sensitive eye-organ (cakkhu-pasāda), and conditioned thereby an excitation of the subconscious stream (bhavaṅga-sota) takes place.
"As soon, however, as subconsciousness is broken off, the functional mind-element (s. Tab. I, 70), grasping the object and breaking through the subconscious stream, performs the function of ‘adverting’ the mind towards the object (āvajjana).
“Immediately thereupon there arises at the eye-door, and based on the sensitive eye-organ, the eye-consciousness, while performing the function of ‘seeing’ (dassana)… Immediately thereafter there arises the mind-element (TabI, 39, 55) performing the function of ‘receiving’ (sampaṭicchana) the object of that consciousness…”
''Immediately thereafter there arises… the mind-consciousness-element (Tab. I, 40, 41, 56), while ‘investigating’ (santīraṇa) the object received by the mind-element…
—Vinnana-kicca, Nyanatiloka, Vism. XIV, 115ff