You’re using the all differently from how the Buddha used it: A Dystopian Present - #17 by NgXinZhao
At Sāvatthī.
“Mendicants, all is liable to be reborn. And what is the all that is liable to be reborn? The eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact are liable to be reborn. And the pleasant, painful, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by eye contact is also liable to be reborn.
The ear … nose … tongue … body … The mind, ideas, mind consciousness, and mind contact are liable to be reborn. And the pleasant, painful, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by mind contact is also liable to be reborn.
Seeing this a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned … They understand: ‘… there is no return to any state of existence.’”
“Mendicants, all is liable to grow old. …”
“Mendicants, all is liable to fall sick. …”
“Mendicants, all is liable to die. …”
“Mendicants, all is liable to sorrow. …”
“Mendicants, all is liable to be corrupted. …”
“Mendicants, all is liable to end. …”
“Mendicants, all is liable to vanish. …”
“Mendicants, all is liable to originate. …”
“Mendicants, all is liable to cease. …”
Clearly then, as Buddha said, all ceases, therefore your notion of the unconditioned within the all, is a wrong notion. What’s left? The real unconditioned, which you label as mere cessation.
Yet you critiqued me when I said the cessation, nothing after parinibbāna is peaceful and happy, and you also put that to your notion of the unconditioned. If you can describe your notion of the unconditioned, so can I.
An9.47
Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end.
Puna caparaṁ, āvuso, bhikkhu sabbaso nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ samatikkamma saññāvedayitanirodhaṁ upasampajja viharati, paññāya cassa disvā āsavā parikkhīṇā honti.
To this extent the Buddha said that extinguishment is apparent in the present life in a definitive sense.”
Ettāvatāpi kho, āvuso, sandiṭṭhikaṁ nibbānaṁ vuttaṁ bhagavatā nippariyāyenā”ti.
when the cessation of perception and feeling is said to be nibbāna in a definitive sense, and the only difference between it as a corpse is:
“When someone dies, their physical, verbal, and mental processes have ceased and stilled; their vitality is spent; their warmth is dissipated; and their faculties have disintegrated.
When a mendicant has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, their physical, verbal, and mental processes have ceased and stilled. But their vitality is not spent; their warmth is not dissipated; and their faculties are very clear. That’s the difference between someone who has passed away and a mendicant who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling.”
What else can we conclude but no mind no body after parinibbāna? No soul, so nothing left. If you put your unconditioned as that something left, then it functions as a soul. Which is denied in Buddhism. Nothingness itself is unconditioned.
All these are refuted once you said: