SuttaCentral
I appreciate the reply and the suggestion.
I’m a belief driven person. I believe that you aren’t supposed to choose the truth, but go with what you think the truth is. I couldn’t feel like I have integrity and choose a religion with a happy, but baseless story for no other reason than liking it.
I’m just going to have to take stock of what I got from Buddhism, what I can keep, and what place Buddhism will have in my life going forward.
What I have been feeling is more than disappointment and will likely be life changing, possibly not in a positive way.
I appreciate you looking up the sutta reference for me. That was time out of your life you could have used for something else. I will read it.
I don’t agree with the idea of keeping teachings from people, even if it is matter of them being ready for it or not. Probably a moot point given the Internet.
If there is a course with a dead end, I would rather know that ahead of time.
I can’t erase what I have heard and I was pursuing Buddhism because I wanted to see if there was something beyond working for one temporary pleasant outcome after another.
I’ve stilled my mind before. It was pleasant. Stilling the mind isn’t the same thing as ending it.
Again, thank you for spending your time in looking up that sutta for me and for spending your time in making this response on my behalf. I appreciate it and I respect you.
Ah, perhaps I worded that poorly. Indeed the Buddha taught with an “open hand” not a “closed fist” keeping teachings from anyone. It’s more a matter of appropriately answering the question asked. But, yes, that’s why I linked to the sutta: so you can read it yourself 
Indeed! And yes, the practice for (personal) nibbāna does have a “dead” end: the end of suffering. If you’re looking for a practice that continues forever without end, maybe Mahayana is more your thing? Nothing wrong with that 
Indeed. All “pleasant” outcomes in this conditioned world are temporary. Sorry. 
Only nibbāna is unconditioned, by nature of transcending experience.
Well, there you go! So, you already know that a little stillness is surprisingly pleasant. The claim is that “cessation” is just like that, just even more still. And even more “pleasant”
I think you’re just getting caught up on the word, tbh. The word “cessation” sounds like “death”. Remember that Nibbāna is also called “the deathless.” “Awakening”. I don’t think anybody who’s actually tasted nibbāna has ever been disappointed by it! At least I have some faith in that.
So, while the terms seem conflicting (is it cessation? or deathless? extinguishing? or awakening?) I think that’s just because nibbāna itself is so far outside our comprehension. I assume that once you attain it yourself, it’ll make sense from the vantage point of that new, enlightened perspective. At least, that’s what I expect! 
To paraphrase Ajahn Chah: “Nibbāna is the end of all your questions”
You’re welcome! I hope some of that is helpful for you
I believe we need to adress an important issue, the nature of sannavedayitanirodha.
I have noticed different teachers say different conflicting things about this. Some say all ceases and some say that the ceasing of sanna and vedana does not mean that all perception or knowing ceases.
I feel we need an expert opinion on this. Because now the Sangha remains confused with ideas of teachers that are conflicting. I feel we need to solve this in some way. I think only one who knows this state can solve this. And ofcourse the nature of sannavedayitanirodha is not dependend on tradition. So what is true?
My intent is not to divide the Sangha but to unify it and seek the truth about this. I feel it is also our responsibility to point out wrong ideas, wrong explanation about something, not to blame people or teachers, but to safeguard Dhamma and not to develop wrong ideas ourselves.
So, again, this is not about blaming or libel but about what is correct.
I feel is it important and very relevant to this topic.
Yeah, in the suttas, when there’s a disagreement, it is recommended to first ask whether this is a case of describing the same thing in different ways or if it’s a genuine disagreement.
In this case, I’m inclined to think it’s a difference in emphasis, not in substance. There’s clearly some kind of “nyana” or “vijja” i.e. knowing (see, e.g. the tenfold path formula) connected with nibanna and yet there’s also no contact, feeling, perception, sankhara … How does that work?? How can you “know” without “perception”?!
At a certain point, I just stop worrying about it and go back to watching my breath 
In “Some Questions about Dhamma”, @Brahmali says:
-Saññāvedayitanirodha and parinibbāna are the same in that everything comes to an end, but whereas the former is temporary, the latter is final".
Because i had some doubts, and also on your advice, I asked Ajahn Suchart about this. He does not say that everything comes to an end in sannavedayitanirodha. This state is known, perceived, and the same seems AN10.6 saying.
“Ānanda, it’s when a mendicant perceives:
‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’
Also MN43 does not say that all ceases in sannavedayitanirodha such as heat and vitality do not cease. The body stays warm and one does not die. Parinibbana must be different, i believe. The body looses heat and vitality gets lost, i think.
Maybe there is no genuine disagreement but i tend to think there is. Some extra explanation would be great. And, i still feel it would be great to have an experts opinion on this, i.e. one who knows sannavedayitanirodha.
(i have used @Brahmali to let this know to Ajahn Brahmali)
Ah @Sunyo you are almost my favourite poster on this forum because you may be relied on to take the opposite view to mine on almost any Buddhist controversy 
I am just hopping back in to this thread to say that as far as I can tell the phrase bhavanirodho nibbānan occurs only twice in the 4 Nikayas, once in SN and once in AN10.
On both occasions the speaker is not the Buddha.
IMV SN and the later AN are often late texts, and texts that are placed in the mouths of speakers other than the Buddha are IMV often late. Finally very rare phrases, especially where they appear to contradict other more common statements in the canon (as in this case the 10 unanswered questions) are suspect.
Metta
Thanks for sharing.
For sure, as you quoted in MN43, Saññāvedayitanirodha, is not parinibbāna.
Clearly, the practitioner/arahant is still alive during the former and not in the latter.
However, without getting into word-play, the very meaning of Saññāvedayitanirodha is without perception or feeling, so how one could say there is perception in this state seems to be a contradiction. As we know, perception is not “knowing” in this context.
Perhaps most importantly, Saññāvedayitanirodha, is a very rare state experienced by arahants or those on the threshold of this, according to what is implied in the sutta. So, perhaps it’s best to recognize this with humility, and keep practicing as best we can until we know for ourselves. 
Yes, for sure. I still feel it would really be great when an expert shares some info about it.
I do not know this state. But i doubt if sanna in this context really refers to perception.
In the Glossary of the book Arahattamagga Arahattaphala sanna is said to be:
saññã: Memory; recognition of physical and mental phenomena as they arise. As the third component of personality, saññã khandha is associated with the function of memory; for instance, recognition, association, and interpretation. Saññã both recognizes the known and gives meaning and significance to all of one’s personal perceptions. Through recollection of past experience, the function of memory gives things specific meanings and then falls for its own interpretation of them, causing one to become either sad or glad about what one perceives"
I have seen also other explanations, but i like this one.
Is it possible that this sanna can end and that there is still perception?
This is an interesting point. What I struggle with is that on one hand sanna is separate from vinnana so it seems hypothetically possible that there could be some experience separate even after sanna has ceased. That said, we also know that vinnana is mutually dependent on namarupa so the question becomes if sanna has ceased, what does vinnana take as it’s object? Perhaps more importantly, vinnana also ceases in parinibbana so how could there still be experience there?
“Is it possible that this sanna can end and that there is still perception?”
As I recall from Arhatamagga Arahattaphala, Ven Boowa described a “state” which he said was impossible to describe – not a dead trance, but also in which nothing was perceived or felt. Sounds like it might have been Saññāvedayitanirodha, but who knows for sure.
I guess what I’m offering is that thinking about the words and concepts, and trying to parse out what can’t be described but can be known, will at some point interfere with our practice and our directly knowing, pativedha , these stages and ultimate liberation from dukkha.
But that’s for each of us to decide.
Wishing you all the Best
I think it is because there’s no way you can defeat samsara. Although Brahmas have tremendous longevity. Maha Brahma is only at top of the 1st jhana and his lifespan is 1 kalpa. Many suttas explain how incredibly long a kalpa is through metaphors and analogies.
The problem is that the suttas invariably define nibbāna as the state of being an arahant, not as what happens to the arahant after death. Such positive statements fit well with idea of arahantship.
Consciousness, perception, and feeling always go together (MN43). You cannot have just one or two of these without the others.
You are right, this is indeed how saññāvedayitanirodhā differs from anupādisesā nibbāna. But then heat and vitality are physical qualities that do not require the presence of mind or consciousness.
Thanks, I suppose.
The cessation of existence is mentioned hundreds of times, so these are not contradictory statements. In these two suttas it is just clarified to be (pari)nibbana but this is implied by all the other times.
Your ways of deciding what late texts are not what scholars generally use.
I’ll just leave it at that, for all this is about what is right and wrong again, instead of the question how emotionally deal with the idea of cessation.
I’d agree that choosing what to believe or disbelieve is incongruous. Choosing which possibilities to explore might be a better way to look at it? Or at least exploring what the possibilities are.
Cessation of what is the question?
Is it the cessation of the body? mind? or feeling and perception?
Accordingly, it is the cessation of the “mind” or “consciousness” that is inherently pessimistic.
What if the cessation of perception and feeling becomes permanent? Is this still a pessimistic position?
"Monks, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted with this body composed of the four great elements, might grow dispassionate toward it, might gain release from it. Why is that? Because the growth & decline, the taking up & putting down of this body composed of the four great elements are apparent. Thus the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted, might grow dispassionate, might gain release there.
"But as for what’s called ‘mind,’ ‘intellect,’ or ‘consciousness,’ the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it. Why is that? For a long time this has been relished, appropriated, and grasped by the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person as, ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’ Thus the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it.
Nirvana is beyond cessation. You take cessation and multiply it by a gazillion, you get Nirvana.
I have seen he describes a state in which there only remains a knowing essence and emptiness.
Yes, I think this is why some also make a distinction in bare awareness or purely knowing (citta) and consciousness (vinnana).
A thought-experiment:
For example, when you would become blind suddenly, eye-vinnana does not arise anymore. You loose sight. The ability to see. But you do not loose bare awareness. It is not that you become unconscious or feel you are not present anymore. Suppose, next to sight you also loose the ability to hear, ear-vinnana’s do not arise. Do you loose a bare awareness? Do you become non-perceiving? Unconscious?
Now, you also loose the ability to smell…to feel tactily…to taste…to think…
This is ofcourse hypothetical and would be very traumatic…but is it possible, that a bare awareness remains while all 6 vinnana’s do not arise anymore?
I tend to believe this is what happens in sannavedaytitanirodha. Something similar seems to be said by Maha Boowa from his own experience. At that moment one also sees that this bare awareness is not an ego or self. While seeing its nature, one also sees it has never been an ego, self, who is this bare awareness. inside us. And that is our commen impression now. We all feel that this bare awareness in us is a self and ego.
Seeing that it has never been an ego, a self, is the end of all asava, defilement, the uprooting of ego and all its connected tendencies.
Thats why i believe sannavedayitanirodha is also describes as a direct way to end all asavas’. Because one directly sees it has never been an ego who is aware and present.
Anyway, AN10.6 says that one can perceive cessation, the stilling of all formations. What do you think of that?
I also think it is not reasonable to talk about sannavedayitanirodha as ultimate happiness like the sutta’s do, when it is not perceived any way at all. It is like saying “abiding in Rome is ultimate happiness” but you have never ever abided in Rome. That way Dhamma becomes something metaphysical and philosophical.
I still go with the explanation of Ajahn Suchart that not all ends, and like the sutta also state it is perceived in some way.
But, i still feel we need an expert opinion, from one who knows this state to make good decisions about this.
Makes no sense if you want to lose something to gain nothing something is missing here