When the Buddha talks about cessation, particularly with respect to anupādisesa nibbānadhatu, nibbāna without residua, there is nothing left.
No conditions. No bright and dark kamma. No khandas. No principles. Nada.
That’s why there’s no dukkha.
This is where mistakes occur. Define nothing… most definitions end up in some form of annihilationism. To quote the suttas… that would be an overreach.
No bright and dark kamma.
There is no performing bright kamma or dark kamma. If the Buddha becoming awakened caused the principle kamma to disappear, we wouldn’t still be under the influence of kamma. Even while alive, the Buddha performed actions that did not lead to new kamma because he had abandoned self-view. That is also part of the principle of kamma.
nibbāna without residue.
Yes. But again - define residue… The issue is that many people use words like absolute, nothing, exist etc. without really understanding their scope and limits.
No khandas
Again, we need specificity. What is meant by no. The Buddha is beyond the aggregates. There is no clinging to aggregates. Do the aggregates cease to exist in an absolute sense? No, because we are still under the influence of the aggregates even though the Buddha is not.
No principles
Without any principles at all there would be no room for Nibbana. At the very least there needs to be a principle that upon awakening, suffering ends forever. Without that principle, suffering would not end.
How those principles might be known or described by an Arahant who is still alive is a different matter and may potentially even vary; as this would be filtered through their consciousness and fabrication aggregate. But there must be principles for the path, practice and fruit to be meaningful.
Nada
Nihilism.
The suttas describe the deathless as a dimension or reality sometimes. It is never described as nada.
No. There is no dukkha because there is no clinging. Otherwise, the Buddha would have suffered while alive, which he did not.
1 Like
Thank you for sharing your views.
There are many previous threads that discuss these points which you may wish to access and read via the Search function.
Rather than respond point by point, and because similar discussions tended to veer into repetitive re-statements of viewpoints,
…you may wish to refer to DN16 in which the Buddha is clearly depicted as enduring physical pain, i.e. a form of dukkha.
When the khandhas are present, as they are while an arahant is still alive, there is dukkha. As the Buddha taught, sabbe sankhāra dukkha. All conditions are essentially dukkha.
True, as you wrote, there is no clinging so there is no dukkha beyond, let’s say, the sañña-vedana of experience/existence while alive. This is sa-upādisesa nibbānadhatu --nibbāna with residua that the Buddha taught. The residue being the khandhas which are still active while the arahant lives.
When an arahant dies (parinibbāna) and the khandhas fall away, there is no rebirth, so no coming into another existence, so nirodha (cessation), nibbāna (extinguishment), so no dukkha.
The absence of ignorance and clinging while alive = nibbana with residue; the absence of clinging here does not mean there is no dukkha, as noted above, but means there will be no rebirth or re-existence, and hence, no dukkha after the final death.
One final point: annihilationism in the suttas refers to a belief in a self or essence that is extinguished/annihilated at death. Which, of course, the Buddha refuted. This is not the same as the extinguishment of parinibbana, since there was never a self/essence to begin with.
While there is some controversy about “final” or parinibbāna as utter extinguishment versus a kind of “timeless awareness” or “deathless citta” (see prior topics and threads), considering the thousands of times the Buddha explicitly taught about nirodha without doing the same regarding the latter is something to consider for those who adhere to a kind of eternalist view of awareness/knowing.
With best wishes 
1 Like
We cannot used modern language which limited to " atta - idea "…created by basic thinking of taking 5 aggregates as " atta "…to describe " the Dhamma "… It seems like we using tribal language to teach Calculus or Thermodynamics…that will not suitable !
Therefore… We have to maintain some original word of Pali… Do not translate every single word, but we can noted the meaning for that Pali word, for example " Atta “…” Anatta "… because English may mixed during translation between " atta " vs " me ", " ma ", " aham "… all these translated as " self "…
5 aggregates…name as " atta "…ordinary and ariya also mane it the same.
BUT…only Ariya…known(understood)…that is " anatta "…but just called it as " atta "…for the sake of pointing to the same thing as everyone else for communication…
(…which pointed to 5 aggregates…)
{I, you, me, he, she, it , Mr.A, Mr.B & other …so on}
…all these are not the 5 aggregates.
5 aggregates are the other, which so call " conditioned-elements "…
{I, you, me, he, she, it , Mr.A, Mr.B & other …so on}…once detached(due to right understood) from 5 aggregates, they will be " distinguished-element "… also called " deathless - element or unconditioned -element "
{I, you, me, he, she, it , Mr.A, Mr.B & other …so on}…during attached will 5 aggregates , Buddha call them as " satta "…meaning " the person who still attached to 5 aggregates "…
The Pali words ‘me’ and ‘aham’ are not, to my knowledge, translated as ‘self’.
More like, ‘ mine’ ‘to me’, and ‘“I’.
1 Like
Oh… let me check, i missed understood.
Thanks for commenting and corrected me.
The first person singular pronoun, ‘aham’ seems always translated into English as ‘I’.
The enclitic Pali pronoun ‘me’ can stand for mayā (by me), or mama (to me or of me ‘mine’), depending on if the case is instrumental, dative, or genitive. )
I suppose the reflexive ‘myself’ can be used in some instances, but this is surely different from the metaphysical ‘self’.
What is your native language? In it, is attā translated with the same word as these prounouns?
1 Like
I would also say that the Buddha’s language in the nikayas does not usually appear to be particularly technical, he seems to speak plainly using ordinary language. I see no reason why the Pali should be left untranslated.
For example " Vinna "…had translated to " consciousness "… But this is technical term which Buddha given a definition… Another one is " anatta "… and also every single each aggregate are definition given…
The Buddha presented his ideas using ordinary language, but gave many words new meanings to express his new insights. Through his usage of these ordinary terms, we can understand his novel ideas.
But the words used by the Buddha would have been familiar to his listeners.
The challenge, as I see it, is not to come up with a novel term to translate these words, but rather to understand what is meant by them through the context in which they are used.
The words themselves are mere designations.
2 Likes
Agreed on this statement…
Yes, for the Buddha, viññanā is always conscious of something, it is an active process, not a fixed quality. (This is what Sāti got wrong). But the English word ‘consciousness’ seems adequate.
1 Like
Kiñca(why), bhikkhave, viññāṇaṁ vadetha(say,called)?
Vijānātīti(sensing) kho(like that), bhikkhave, tasmā(therefore) ‘viññāṇan’ti vuccati(called).
as above definition of " viññanā "…is " Vijānātīti "…
Which shall probably be " sense(verb) "… Is’n it?
I agreed as above… Therefore, it is " anatta "…
All 5 aggregates when subject to clinging are anicca, dukkha, and anattā.
“This is not me, not mine, not my ‘self’”
1 Like
…totally agreed…
Just wanted to test, why it " dukkha "…what is reason ?
You are asking why the 5A are ‘dukkha’?
There are many suttas that discuss this.
‘Anekapariyāyā’
Ok, thanks…
Sorry but there is no evidence for the above. In fact the evidence is for the opposite. I already posted that MN 1 contains a similar list of dhammas as MN 49 but MN 49 excludes the immaterial spheres listed in MN 1. This shows the Brahma Gods are unable to access the immaterial spheres. In other words, as Bhikkhu Sujato also suggested in his blog years ago, viññāṇa anidassana is probably simply an immaterial sphere. I already offered you the most logical reason why viññāṇa anidassana, which is absent of discriminations of “long vs short”, is not Nibbana (which is defined as the destruction of craving).
Viññāṇa anidassana is only found in two suttas to Brahma Worshippers. It is never taught to Buddhists; let alone to Arahants. Therefore, again, the evidence shows it is not about Nibbana. If Viññāṇa anidassana was Nibbana, it would have been taught & explained countless times in the Suttas to Arahants and Noble Disciples.
Certainly, I am not here here to support frivolous unsubstantiated ideas such as the Buddha taught the highest most secret esoteric Nibbana to some faithless unenlightened puthujjana Brahma Gods. Also, it does not seem to be the proper behaviour/conduct of a Buddha to visit Brahma Gods in an unsolicited manner and harass, insult & humiliate them. MN 49 looks like fake dharma to me; mere religious propaganda. But it seems Venerable Thanissaro swallowed that bait (assada) hook, line & sinker; where as the Venerable Sujato discerned MN 49 & DN 11 aloof, with mindfulness & clear-comprehension, uninfatuated, dispassionate, seeing the danger, seeing the reality. That is why my posts are actually my best wishes. All the best. 
1 Like
May I ask where the Buddha taught this? I cannot find the phrase in the canon?
Metta