SuttaCentral
Iti44
Ireland:
“Bhikkhus, there are these two Nibbāna-elements. What are the two? The Nibbāna-element with residue left and the Nibbāna-element with no residue left.
Sujato:
“There are, mendicants, these two elements of extinguishment.
“Dvemā, bhikkhave, nibbānadhātuyo.
What two?
Katamā dve?
The element of extinguishment with something left over, and the element of extinguishment with nothing left over.
Saupādisesā ca nibbānadhātu, anupādisesā ca nibbānadhātu.
So just for clarity:
saupādisesā ca nibbānadhātu
occurs in
VN: 0
DN: 0
SN: 0
AN: 0
KN: 2 (once in the Itivutakka and once in the Netti)
AB: 0
So the distinction might be said to be rare? in the EBT’s.
nibbānadhātu
occurs in
VN: 1
DN: 6 (all bar one in the parinibbanasutta)
MN: 0
SN:1
AN: 4
KN: 54 (6 times in Udana and Itivutakka and all the rest in late books)
AB: 5 (all in the Kathuvathu, so even the tradition ascribes these to a much later period)
So the concept of the “Nibbana Element” seems very rare in the earliest books, and much more common in books known to be late, and the distinction between “Nibbana Element with Leftovers” and Nibbana Element without Leftovers" seems even rarer, occuring only in the Itivitakka and the Mahaparinibbanasutta.
I think this assertion is totally absent from the early canon, bar one ambiguous argument in the Yamaka and Anurādha suttas at SN22.85 (Yamaka) and SN22.86 and SN44.2 (Anurādha) both the Agama parallels omit the argument.
thanks @CurlyCarl , your right, there are some more examples that deal with “a person with something left over” such as at AN9.12 however this is actually an interpretive problem for those who take the nibbana element dotrine to be supported by the EBT’s because it talks about persons “with something left over” being reborn, and implies that only those “with nothing left over” are not reborn. This contradicts the usage given in the “nibbana with something left over” camp.
(I would also say that AN9.12 is pretty palpably late, ending with an “explanation” of why Sariputta has never heard this teaching given by the Buddha before)
Metta
Why? A person is not Nibbana therefore why would both having “something left over” refer to the same thing? In AN 9.12, the persons have defilments remaining (“left-over”); where as in Iti 44 Nibbana has contact & vedana remaining (“left-over”). 
because it appears that a fairly technical term is being used in the EBT’s in two contradictory ways, and it also seems that the term, used in either way, is very rare, and it seems to imply that it’s possible to predicate over nibbana as a concept that is that nibbana can be “with” and “without” things and this seems to contradict the philosophy in the early materials.
Metta.
extinguished is extinguished, it is something a person does when alive, the idea that there is some useful distinction to be made other than as a kind of epithet is nonsensical.
Hmm, I knew it was rare, but didn’t realise it was that rare…
On a par with Viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ…
Its not being used differently; just like in english it is not used differently. In English, to say I drink coffee with something left-over is not the same as I vented my anger with something left-over.
No, it doesn’t. The early materials are consistent with Nibbana with something left over because they are about NIbbana as the destruction of craving rather than Nibbana as the end of feelings.
Its not really nonsensical if you reflect upon, practice or ‘embody’ this teaching. For example, from MN 140:
Suppose an oil lamp depended on oil and a wick to burn. As the oil and the wick are used up, it would be extinguished due to lack of fuel. In the same way, feeling the end of the body approaching, they understand: ‘I feel the end of the body approaching.’ Feeling the end of life approaching, they understand: ‘I feel the end of life approaching.’ They understand: ‘When my body breaks up and my life has come to an end, everything that’s felt, since I no longer take pleasure in it, will become cool right here.’ Therefore a mendicant thus endowed is endowed with the ultimate foundation of wisdom. For this is the ultimate noble wisdom, namely, the knowledge of the ending of suffering.
The same is in Iti 44:
And what is the element of extinguishment with nothing left over? It’s when a mendicant is a perfected one, with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own true goal, utterly ended the fetters of rebirth, and is rightly freed through enlightenment. For them, everything that’s felt, being no longer relished, will become cool right here. This is called the element of extinguishment with nothing left over. These are the two elements of extinguishment.”
Therefore, one Nibbana includes consciousness & feeling; and the other Nibbana is when everything becomes “cold” right there, i.e., there is no longer any consciousness & feeling.
. Nibbana with contact & feelings is described in countless suttas.
“Lord of Gods, it’s when a mendicant has heard: ‘Nothing is worth insisting on.’ When a mendicant has heard that nothing is worth insisting on, they directly know all things. Directly knowing all things, they completely understand all things. Having completely understood all things, when they experience any kind of feeling—pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral—they meditate observing impermanence, dispassion, cessation, and letting go in those feelings. Meditating in this way, they don’t grasp at anything in the world. Not grasping, they’re not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become extinguished. They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’ That’s how I briefly define a mendicant who is freed through the ending of craving, who has reached the ultimate end, the ultimate sanctuary, the ultimate spiritual life, the ultimate goal, and is best among gods and humans.”
MN 37
Thanks @CurlyCarl 
glad I can keep things lively around here!
I guess what I mean by “used differently” is that in the AN sutta talk of “remainders” is applied to people not to nibbana, and as far as I can tell, “remainders” are never applied to anything else except either people or nibanna, so again at AN7.56 the nuns are said to have no remainders, but as far as I can tell are not in fact said to be dead, nor do the explanations by Tissa the Brahma imply that the persons under discussion are (necessarily) dead.
It really looks like being a “person with nothing left over” is a way of describing an enlightened person in AN, while “with nothing left over” is an epithet for a deceased enlightened person in Iti.
In either case the concept is rare, poorly attested in the earliest strata, and does contradict conditionality in attributing ‘withs’ and ‘withouts’ to nibbana.
lol! 
Just for the sake of completeness, anupādisesā occurs, according to my Digital Pali Reader search:
VN: 1
DN: 6 (all bar 1 in the mahaparinibbana)
MN: 0
SN:0
AN:6 (4 times in relation to Nibbana, 2 time in relation to people)
KN: 37 (7 times in “early” books 30 times in “late” ones)
AB: 0
Itivuttaka 44 is what I was referring to.
I actually agree both seem palpably late but I first try to examine them for any useful principles. For example, with AN 9.12, I simply regard Sariputta asking the Buddha about the subject matter out of respect rather than asking due to ignorance.
I agree, just being late doesn’t mean wrong or bad, I am just quite passionate about trying to discern which ways of explaining are the earliest and which are later.
Thanks.
The comment was not offered as a catagorical statement based on a quote from the suttas, but more with respect to the thousands of times the Buddha referred to anattā, to not seeing any aspect of experience as I, me, mine, and with respect to the aspects of the teachings that point to there being no enduring, everlasting self/soul/essence.
But maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.
Personally, I have always struggled with the use of “bhava” in the following:
One element pertains to the present life—
Ekā hi dhātu idha diṭṭhadhammikā,
what is left over when the conduit to rebirth has ended.
Saupādisesā bhavanettisaṅkhayā;
What has nothing left over pertains to what follows this life,
Anupādisesā pana samparāyikā,
where all states of existence cease.
Yamhi nirujjhanti bhavāni sabbaso.Iti 44
The above said, “bhava” can be used quite broadly, including for wholesome states, as follows:
Swiftly strive, learn to be wise!
Khippaṁ vāyama paṇḍito bhava
Dhp 238
Let them make an end to suffering!
dukkhassantakaro bhava
be full of disillusionment.
nibbidābahulo bhava.
Snp 2.11
Yes… I had a good conversation with Sunyo about that. Below are the issues I’ve found with that line of analysis.
The only thing I would wish to amend is the speculation that consciousness without surface might shape the consciousness aggregate. That is getting into a view of consciousness as a source of everything, which is wrong, and not what I intend.
I’m not sure I even really have a point at this point, perhaps I felt you where leaning towards an absolutist reading of Anatta that I think is sort of the mirror-image mistake of @dhamma012 /Thanissaro’s eternal citta position and was trying to advocate for a more nuanced “middle way” but honestly I think I am losing track of all the treads I am in and it’s getting to the point where I am just adding my “hot take” about term-frequencies to almost any conversation!
I find this site incredibly useful to bounce ideas around and draft things in an environment where debate can occur and revisions made, but maybe it’s time to take a break from multiple threads and concentrate on my research in preparation for starting a thread of my own about my specific interests in these issues.
Metta.
Just to clarify. As I understand Ajahn Thanissaro’s position, it is not that the citta is eternal, but rather that it is outside of space and time. It might not seem like much of a distinction, but it is important. This citta doesn’t interact with the aggregates and has nothing to do with space and time.
An analogy from physics. Something moving at the speed of light does not experience time. This means that although we see light particles bouncing around in time the light particle, paradoxically, experiences no time at all.
I’ve got the beginnings of an idea for a multi-part series that delves into the teachings of the Thai forest tradition. At some point I may map things out to present a more complete picture.
The quote pain is mandatory, suffering is optional comes to mind.
Below is a quote from SN21.2 where Sariputta describes his experience as an Arahant.
“Just now, reverends, as I was in private retreat this thought came to mind: ‘Is there anything in the world whose changing and perishing would give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress in me?’ It occurred to me: ‘There is nothing in the world whose changing and perishing would give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress in me.’”
The suttas define dukkha as sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. If these don’t arise, then regardless of what physical pain an Arahant experiences, they do not experience dukkha.
Another quote from SN36.6
A wise and learned person isn’t affected by feelings of pleasure and pain. This is the great difference in skill between the wise and the ordinary.
A learned person who has assessed the teaching discerns this world and the next. Desirable things don’t disturb their mind, nor are they repelled by the undesirable.
Both favoring and opposing are cleared and ended, they are no more. Knowing the stainless, sorrowless state, they who have gone beyond rebirth understand rightly.”
May I ask what sutta quotes or citations can be offered specifically about a citta or viññana outside of time and space?