I mean, it’s totally understandable to have a negative reaction to the idea that the Buddha taught cessation, your feelings are valid! 
Hello again!
I think we both agree “great delight” and “desire” are to be abandoned. 
So I feel it’s unjustified to imply what drives your fellow human beings. Many people think the Buddha taught the cessation of consciousness without actively desiring or finding delight in that. In fact, such desire is in my experience very rare compared to the desire to keep existing. So no need to worry! 
Also in the suttas desire to exist is addressed much more often than desire for annihilation, I belief. So that seems to be the more common problem.
Parinibbana is the cessation of suffering, not the non-existence of someone. This is why the fire analogy is so apt. If a fire goes out, is there anything mournful about that? 
Is that a pessimistic idea? If someone thinks it is a dark and pessimistic for a fire to stop burning, I suppose you would think they kind of lost the track. Because you know a fire getting extinguished is just a natural thing, and nothing is lost in the process. Now, the five aggregates are no different, as MN72 explains. They are also just part of nature. There is nothing sad or dark about them ceasing. We just have to depersonalize the idea. As MN72 also says:
All consciousness by which you might define ‘a Truthfinder’, Truthfinders [i.e. enlightened ones] abandoned. They cut off its roots, made it like a palm stump, put an end to it so that it will never reoccur. Truthfinders no longer identify with consciousness …
For everybody, imagine some being somewhere far away that you never knew. Imagine after their death their consciousness and such cease to be, and “only bodily remains are left” (as SN12.51). How do you feel about that? Probably quite indifferent. Now pretend you cease similarly. Why do you feel so different now, when you imagine your own cessation? That difference is the attachment, that’s where the sense of self comes up and we get personally involved.
By the way, the suttas directly address some of the concerns raised by @1hullofaguy in this topic. MN22 says that anxiety arises when people consider cessation thinking there is a Self. Here’s my translation:
[A mendicant:] “Your reverence, can people be anxious about something that does not exist within them?”
“They can be, mendicant,” said the Lord Buddha. “Some people have the view that there is a Universal Self, and that after death they will be that—permanent, constant, eternal, unchanging, everlasting. They hear the Truthfinder or one of his disciples teach the Teaching for completely removing reliance on, insistence on, adhering to, obsession with, and dispositions towards views. And for stopping all creations, for giving up all acquisitions, for ending craving, for fading away, for cessation, for extinguishment. They then think: ‘Oh no, I shall be destroyed, eradicated! I won’t exist anymore!’ They sorrow, mourn, and grief, and cry beating their chest, all confused. That is how someone can be anxious about something that does not exist within them.”
“Your reverence, can people be unanxious about something that does not exist within them?”
“They can be, mendicant,” said the Lord Buddha. “Some people do not have the view that there is a Universal Self, and that after death they will be that—permanent, constant, eternal, unchanging, everlasting. They hear the Truthfinder or one of his disciples teach the Teaching for completely removing reliance on, insistence on, adhering to, obsession with, and dispositions towards views. And for stopping all creations, for giving up all acquisitions, for ending craving, for fading away, for cessation, for extinguishment. They do not think: ‘Oh no, I shall be destroyed, eradicated! I won’t exist anymore!’ They won’t sorrow, mourn, or grief, or cry beating their chest, all confused. That is how someone can be unanxious about something that does not exist within them. […]
When I state and explain this, some renunciants and brahmins misrepresent me, baselessly and falsely arguing that I am an annihilationist. They say that I declare the annihilation of an entity. They misrepresent me when saying so, because I am not, and I do not declare that. Both formerly and now I declare there is only suffering and the cessation of suffering [not the cessation of a Self or person].”
The same topic is addressed in SN22.55:
“As an unlearned ordinary person—who has not seen the worthy people, the noble ones, and is unversed and untrained in their teachings—you perceive form, feeling, perception, will, or consciousness to be, to be owned by, to be part of, or to contain a Self. You do not understand form, feeling, perception, will, and consciousness—which are temporary—as they really are: to be temporary. You do not understand form, feeling, perception, will, and consciousness—which are suffering—as they really are: to be suffering. You do not understand form, feeling, perception, will, and consciousness—which are without a Self—as they really are: to be without a Self. You do not understand form, feeling, perception, will, and consciousness—which are created—as they really are: to be created. You do not understand as it really is that form, feeling, perception, will, and consciousness will be annihilated.
As an unlearned ordinary person you get scared about something which is not scary, because you worry: ‘It might not exist, and I may not have it. It will not exist, and I will not have it.’ But as a learned noble disciple you do not get scared about something which is not scary, because you do not worry: ‘It might not exist, and I may not have it. It will not exist, and I will not have it.’”
The view ‘it might not exist, and I may not have it. It will not exist, and I will not have it’ is how the annihilationists phrased their view, the view that a person/entity ceases to be. Funnily enough, in AN10.29 this is actually praised as the best wrong view, for “when someone has such a view, you can expect that they will be repelled by existence and will not be repelled by the cessation of existence.”
So the suttas mention people getting anxious when hearing the Buddha’s teaching! I find that quite telling. It makes a lot of sense when the goal is cessation of experience. It is not easy to explain why people got anxious if the end result was some eternal state of bliss. Likewise, in this light it makes sense why the view of the annihilationists was considered the “best” wrong view.
This is an adoption of Brahminical terminology, and such phrasing is rare compared to cessation. The un- prefix (a- in pali) ordinarily means negation of what comes after. So it could also be translated less confusingly as “not(hing) born, made, or become”. Or “the end of what is born, made, and become”. Anyway, I don’t want to get into translation too much. But since you say you are worried about readings, just know the suttas aren’t half as clear as many modern eternalists are. (Which says a lot, imo.) For example, the Buddha never calls nibbana a type of consciousness or existence. In fact, he does the very opposite.
And all that, in my opinion, is what makes Buddhism so cool. 
15 Likes
Let me put it easier.
With this sutta that described that even a non returner can’t fully understand the Nibbana yet on SN 48.12.
So will it be possible for a common folk to fully understand or fully appreciate/know what Nibbana is?
I doubt it. 
… “But what does extinguishment have recourse to?”
“This question goes too far, brahmin! You weren’t able to grasp the limit of questioning. For extinguishment is the culmination, destination, and end of the spiritual life.”
…
If he were to pass away at this time, he would be bound by no fetter that might return him to this world.”
Btw don’t abandon anything yet without knowing the pro and cons of each experience.
For example, one can only abandon sensual experience once one has been able to maintain samadhi which is finer than sensual pleasures. Etc.
The path is gradual because wisdom arise after meeting certain conditions. Follow the exact steps that is N8FP.
Right view lead to perfected ethics/sila, then lead to perfected samadhi, and perfected wisdom/panna.
Good luck.
1 Like
I believe that in your reading there is no asankhata dhatu. In your reading there is only sankhata: things/formations arising, ceasing, and changing. There is nothing that can be known not to arise, cease and change. Nothing that is unmade and unproduced and stable. So,no refuge.
I feel there is no clear evidence for this reading in the EBT. I understand you can read this in the texts, but i also understand why other buddhist teachers do not read this in the texts.
I pray that i do understand the Buddha correctly.
Given there will always be some uncertainty, it seems wiser to think of one’s interpretation as a hypothesis but not commit to it 100% (only this is true, everything else is false!), IMO.
I feel the Buddha wouldn’t fault us for being uncertain, but he probably would fault us for being too dogmatic in the absence of direct experience
7 Likes
Hi there venerable @Sunyo
Your parents where very happy that someone was born, a unique human, a living being. Were they only fooled by their thoughts? Was there never someone born?
I feel we people can become so trapped in reasoning that we can even argue that no person, no child, no unique human was born at that moment but only fleeting processes, or only atoms and molecules, or only elements or quarcks or only energy. I do not like this depersonalisation. I feel there is nothing wrong that a unique person was born at tha moment, and also dies some time.
Sorry @Sunyo, I feel it is a very weird and unnatural conclusion that nothing gets lost when all experiences end for ever. What get lost is experience, never a smell anymore, never a sound, idea, plan, nice conversation, friendship, moment of devotion etc etc.
Oke, one can have arrived at a point this is all just worthless (depression) or only suffering (maybe true), but one cannot say that nothing gets lost in the process.
I am not at a point that i feel every experience is suffering.
Yes, those people do not have the reference, the knowledge, the experiential proof, that cessation of experience is not the same as cessation of oneself. That is what i believe. I believe Buddha has that knowledge that cessation of experience is not the cessation of oneself but is like being home in the deepest sense possible.
See, there is wisdom in you 
2 Likes
Well, I can confidently tell you that my parents aren’t enlightened. 
Seriously, though. There is a being but without anything inside that lasts forever, just like the flame has no solid essence. Anyway, you’ve heard these ideas before so I won’t repeat them.
4 Likes
It would be really helpful if someone could identify exactly what it is that they think survives after death. Is it some part of the body? Or some kind of mental process that keeps running somewhere… where exactly? Or if its ‘Consciousness’ that survives, where exactly in time/ space can it be found, what is it conscious of and how? What’s the proof?
Asking for a friend. 
1 Like
Perhaps this sutta will help
“The instructed noble disciple, bhikkhu, who is a seer of the noble ones … does not regard form as self … or self as in consciousness.
“He understands as it really is impermanent form as ‘impermanent form’ … impermanent consciousness as ‘impermanent consciousness.’
“He understands as it really is painful form as ‘painful form’ … painful consciousness as ‘painful consciousness.’
“He understands as it really is selfless form as ‘selfless form’ … selfless consciousness as ‘selfless consciousness.’
“He understands as it really is conditioned form as ‘conditioned form’ … conditioned consciousness as ‘conditioned consciousness. ’
“He understands as it really is: ‘Form will be exterminated’ … ‘Feeling will be exterminated’ … ‘Perception will be exterminated’ … ‘Volitional formations will be exterminated’ … ‘Consciousness will be exterminated.’
“With the extermination of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness, that bhikkhu, resolving thus: ‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me,’ can cut off the lower fetters.”
>
“Resolving thus, venerable sir, a bhikkhu can cut off the lower fetters. But how should one know, how should one see, for the immediate destruction of the taints to occur?”“Here, bhikkhu, the uninstructed worldling becomes frightened over an unfrightening matter. For this is frightening to the uninstructed worldling: ‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me.’ But the instructed noble disciple does not become frightened over an unfrightening matter. For this is not frightening to the noble disciple: ‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me.’
“Consciousness, bhikkhu, while standing, might stand engaged with form … engaged with feeling … engaged with perception … engaged with volitional formations; based upon volitional formations, established upon volitional formations, with a sprinkling of delight, it might come to growth, increase, and expansion.
“Bhikkhu, though someone might say: ‘Apart from form, apart from feeling, apart from perception, apart from volitional formations, I will make known the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and rebirth, its growth, increase, and expansion’—that is impossible.
“Bhikkhu, if a bhikkhu has abandoned lust for the form element, with the abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. If he has abandoned lust for the feeling element … for the perception element … for the volitional formations element … for the consciousness element, with the abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the establishing of consciousness.
“When that consciousness is unestablished, not coming to growth, nongenerative, it is liberated. By being liberated, it is steady; by being steady, it is content; by being content, he is not agitated. Being unagitated, he personally attains Nibbāna. He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’
“It is, bhikkhu, for one who knows thus, for one who sees thus, that the immediate destruction of the taints occurs.”
Would you be able to re-cognize a relative upon encountering him/her in a shopping center? If so, on what basis? what is it that remained the same since you saw him/her last time? When you saw him/her, was s/he alive or dead?
The answer would be: the relative is recognizable to the extent that any change that took place since you saw hm/her last time is not sufficient to make him/her unrecognizable. Usually, the proof is two sided: if s/he also recongizes you, then this should serve as a criteria/proof that the identification was accurate.
Will you be able to recognize the relative is s/he died? maybe this would limit your ability to make an interactive/direct contact with him/her, but would still be recongizable through a third party, through a photo, video recording, or simply memories of conversations you had with him/her.
Why its called consciousness? it cognizes.
Well (and this is likely a side - track), I’d like to most respectfully offer that Consciousness is simply an illusion (SN22.95) based upon the mental processes of namma actively running on rupa (SN12.65) viz the Mind (SN47.42). Consciousness arises afresh from moment to moment based on contact at the sense base (MN38) decaying even as it arises in every moment. The illusion of continuity of Consciousness that each of us perceives is just that… an illusion based on stitching together the memory of the past moment with the moment before that. Avijja allows this Sankhara to arise and we develop Vinnana of that Sankhara. Consciousness does not have any permanent essence (SN22.46) and it cannot arise, much less survive without its co -factors of namma-rupa.
(Forgive me for elaborating, I know you know all this already… but its just to provide context for those reading the thread) 
Not wanting to be impertinent, but even a mobile phone can recognize faces to the same extent as in the example, both in real time as well as in photos, video recordings etc. ‘That’ which cognizes is IMO, simply the result of a bunch of processes running on hardware. Unless proven otherwise. 
AFAIK, when the hardware is switched off, the processing stops. Without hardware to run its causal processes on, ‘That’ which cognizes, speaks, tells jokes, navigates cars, makes medical diagnoses, plays chess, discusses philosophy etc simply ceases. … and here I am referring to Siri, Tesla, Watson, Deep Blue, LaMDA and the rest of their ilk.
Now, if some part of this fathom long body called ‘I’ is actually different, if it is Nicca, Sukkha and Atta and survives after the breaking up of the aggregates, what is it and where? That’s the million dollar question!
1 Like
The point that i am trying to make is that idenrity, as a measure of recognizability, does not contradict the teachings of the Budda as i understand them . The fetters, of which identity view is one, are only relevant to meditative knowledge, where such measurements do not apply. Raising it as a philosophical quesrion that assumes identity is misleading and a complete waste of time in my opinion.
1 Like
IMO you are struggling with some really important questions in the OP.
I’m still agnostic myself on some of these fundamental questions (why I’m not sure I can call really myself a Buddhist in spite of deep respect for the teaching – on such questions, I find I just don’t know – and logically I can’t rule out materialism or forms of perennialism either; I keep an open mind). This path seems a wholesome practice to me and I’ll see where I end up (and if such questions will resolve themselves in due course 
).
I’d agree on the pessimism (that doesn’t imply that the view is ultimately invalid though). A key tenet is existence is suffering/unsatisfactory. Existence, therefore, cannot really be the solution in this framework!
That does not necessarily mean that non-existence is either. I might also quibble with the “mere” before “cessation” in your OP title, which I will go into next.
The four-fold negation (which has puzzled and seemed downright mysterious to me) crops up in several places in the suttas regarding the state of the arahant or Tathagata after death (ruling out the four states of “exists”, “not exists”, “both exists and not exists” and “neither exists nor not exists” as applicable). The Yamaka sutta (SN22.85) has been used to support the line of thought that the Tathagatha as an impersonal process did not really exist here and now and that’s why those 4 categories do not apply after death (that there was not an existence as such to begin with). I’d have doubts as to whether that’s quite the way this sutta should be looked at. There are other suttas containing this fourfold negation.
The Khema sutta (SN44.1) comes to mind. That has a section on the Buddha’s existence or non-existence after death, much like the Yamaka sutta, but that is followed by a section somewhat different in feel:
“Is there any accountant or finger-tallier or reckoner who can count the water in the ocean, that is, how many gallons of water there are, how many hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of gallons of water?”
“No, ma’am. Why is that? Because the ocean is deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom.”
“In the same way, great king, any form by which a Realized One might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A Realized One is freed from reckoning in terms of form. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. To say that after death, a Realized One exists, or doesn’t exist, or both exists and doesn’t exist, or neither exists nor doesn’t exist: none of these apply.
Any feeling … perception … choices … consciousness by which a Realized One might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A Realized One is freed from reckoning in terms of consciousness. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. To say that after death, a Realized One exists, or doesn’t exist, or both exists and doesn’t exist, or neither exists nor doesn’t exist: none of these apply.”
Because of the above, I’d be unsure that cessation is equivalent to non-existence either (this kind of logic seems to be being applied specifically to an arahant or Buddha – there are other suttas referring to the untraceability of such beings even in this life).
The metaphor of a blackboard comes to mind. Words on it are composed of chalk marks. When these are erased, they are gone. However, the blackboard remains. Or clouds in the sky. When a cloud disperses, it is gone, but the sky remains. Or when a wave subsides and the water becomes flat, the ocean remains.
When the 5 khandas are gone, the conditioned being has dispersed. The being does not exist. However, is that non-existence? That gets into questions about the nature of nibbana and the unconditioned, though. When conditioned things have come to an end, is there just nothing or the unconditioned? I don’t think there are any real clinchers regarding the nature of nibbana. Some here have given passages earlier in the thread that have been used to suggest it as something. Two more come to mind:
From AN 3.47 (again with an ocean theme – I think there’s a similar passage in the Udana):
For all the world’s streams that reach it, and the rain that falls from the sky, the ocean never empties or fills up. In the same way, though several mendicants become fully extinguished through the element of extinguishment with nothing left over, the element of extinguishment never empties or fills up. This is the fifth thing the mendicants love about this teaching and training.
and from AN 3.47:
Characteristics of the Conditioned
“Mendicants, conditioned phenomena have these three characteristics. What three? Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident. These are the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena.”
Characteristics of the Unconditioned
“Unconditioned phenomena have these three characteristics. What three? No arising is evident, no vanishing is evident, and no change while persisting is evident. These are the three characteristics of unconditioned phenomena.”
These are only suggestive, but I’d be wary of applying Occam’s razor to basic ontological questions like this.
To sum up, I think you have a point on a certain basic pessimism regarding existence (though others might call it realism). While I find it hard to see how cessation or nibbana could be considered existence in the framework of the suttas, I’m not so sure we’re talking about non-existence either (particularly since a lot of the teaching seems to carefully skirt or shy away from directly pointing at existence or non-existence, e.g., I recently was going through DN33 and this sentence comes to mind from that “views favoring continued existence and views favoring ending existence” – those are two types of views to be discouraged).
5 Likes
we don’t know any hardware behind the processes. What we experience is the perception of a hardware which is a manifestation of these processes.
in fact some depression symptoms like some people writes, probably are related with an excessive intellectual consumption of Dhamma without a real integration in life. When there is not real acceptance of the first noble truth, the person remains like a Dhamma tourist. It doesn’t care the person can become a Pali erudite or expending thousand hours seated at the floor. The situation can last even the whole life, which is sad. Although at the same time not so bad because at least that person keep contact with Dhamma for a next rebirth.
For any person with Dhamma well integrated, the title “On the inherent pessimism of parinibbana as mere cessation” is quite an absurdity because that person knows the title should be “On the inherent pessimism of existence as mere deluded experience”.
Then maybe some people is sad because still they ignore what Dhamma is, despite the many readings. The Buddha said “Birth is dukkha”.
Dukkha is a constant presence because we were born. From subtle degrees until the open experience. We live with dukkha all time. We are not beings like gods without coarse rupa. If we put some attention, even without doing anything we can feel the weight of our body and many other uncomfortable feelings, proper of the kamma of a human being. To be born means dukkha. When somebody is not aware of this fact, he or she is like an slave who prefers to believe that his existence is the best possible option.
Sometimes the worldly happiness (sukha) arise because the attention to dukkha is not permanent, and then sukha can works like a sort of “worldly cease” for some moments. We cannot experience dukkha and sukha at same moment, and the worldly happiness always means leaving dukkha in some degree, like a pseudo-cease.
In fact, note when everybody consider the highest worldly happiness, (like in example the sexual orgasm, altered states by drugs, becoming in love, artistic ecstasy and similar states) all these experiences include some moments of leaving oneself and the world. And then, everybody says “at those moments I was really happy”.
Everybody is pursuing a sort of cease when they are pursuing happiness
So, when the nature of any higher happiness is linked with some non-individuation degree, the fears to nibbana should sound like an absurdity. However, these fears arise like a sort of spiritual disease. Like an impotence in front the expectation too higher of happiness. The spiritual pole cannot get up and probably that person feels fear and sadness. The atta attachment (the worries “about me”) are blocking the possibility of higher happiness.
IMHO there are at least 2 main things:
-
self attachment. “What will happen with me?”. This fear become an absurdity talking on happiness like previously explained. And it blocks the wish of nibbana.
-
no real integration of the first noble trtuth. Without this, no arising of true joy which also is a required factor for enlightenment.
Discernment of the first noble truth related with -self attachment can be realized with the previous arguments and many more.
In example, we know that we all will die. The present “I” and this world both will be leaved. And not just one time but many more, without end. Many absurd “myself” will arise like the present one, all they sealed to expire like youghourts. All they should experience death and vanished existences with their respective perceived worlds; including beloved friends and relatives, wonderful places… all leaved like an hallucination. Again and again. Where is the final sense?. There is no any sense, it is only a cold mechanics of cause-effect full of dukkha. A complete trap.
The perspective of endless absurd existences with dukkha is worse than pessimistic, it is a condemnation.
However, a real integration of the first noble truth depends of the own stupidity levels: that’s when we recognize the truth of something but we prefer to believe an opposite thing. Some people can experience unhappy events catalyzing the integration of the first noble truth in a short time, while other people can request of many lifes. Depends of kamma.
In a first stage, is normal the consumption of Dhamma like a philosophical product. Then it only exist like another expectation for the personal enjoyment of this world. Like the secularists views, although it also affects to many people in a first stage.
This is an atta view, and ignorant of the real dukkha meaning, and useless for the arising of true inner joy. Because that joy arise independent from the world, with Dhamma like its only source. This joy is a way to overcame dukkha and a requested factor for awakening. This is unknown for outsiders and Dhamma tourists, that’s all the problem. And some people can remain like a Dhamma tourist for a long time while they cannot accept the real magnitude of this issue.
When somebody give a wrong role to the Truth in the existence, that person cannot expect the Truth can answer more of what was requested.
Internet is plenty of people looking Dhamma like a possible tool to get more attachment to this funny world. We see spiritual tourists, political activists, science hooligans, etc… All they with their own scripts which should not be changed. Just they request some Dhamma ingredient to put still more weight in the own hallucination, despite it is already programmed to expire.
Absurd although not rare.
3 Likes
I have always found samadhi to be peaceful and have always thought of cessation as being profound peace of mind. I think that if it is reached, it will not disappoint.
3 Likes
Am I correct in thinking the suttas don’t clearly say what happens when an Arahant dies?
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
4 Likes
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
5 Likes