SuttaCentral
I’m not talking about consciousness, I’m talking about experiencing without consciousness. For example, a monk experiences nirodha-samapati, but at the same time he does not realize, does not feel and does not perceive at this moment. That’s why I said, one can experience something by reaching a certain state or immersed in it. This is an unconscious experience.
No.
Someone - in a conventional sense, Experience - in a conventional sense. In the absolute sense, there is only dukkha and the cessation of dukkha, sankhara and asankhata.
This reminds me of the Thomas Nagel’s quote in “What is it like to be a Bat”:
“An organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism – something that it is like for the organism.”
Nagel is saying consciousness is the experience of being an organism in the world, that is, responding to its situation in the world. Consciousness appears to be a subset of possible experiences. But is this what is meant by consciousness in Buddhism?
No, this is not related to what I said.
As far as I understand, in Buddhism, consciousness is a certain ability to cognize something, bring into being and form a subjective experience, position. When there is no consciousness, there is simply an absence of time and events. Suppose you were experiencing something, then for a whole day you had no consciousness and then it turned on. for your subjective experience / being - between the moment of turning off consciousness and turning it on again there is no gap, time, and break. It looks like if your consciousness weakened, turned off and then turned on without any gap. But in the world during this time there have been a lot of changes and events. And yet bringing these events into your subjective being, experience and knowledge has stopped. In this example of the absence of consciousness, you can understand what consciousness itself is. If vinnana is pure naked knowledge that some object is present, the starting point of cognition and the root ability to know/experience, then vedana and sannya clarify individual characteristics of experience. sanchetana - reacts. etc.
Actually, in the attainment of Nothingness, along with all the formless attainments a subtle perception/consciousness remains, even in the last one.
If you’re speaking of saññavedayitanirodha there is no consciousness present in that state. However, it’s only known after one comes out of that state, as the Buddha says, because of the remaining presence of “vital energy.” There is no evidence of there being an experience during this state, since there is no consciousness to experience it.
Yes.
Are you saying that the monk did not experience nirodha samapati? if so, he did not enter it. and I have already said about consciousness that it is an experience without consciousness, through the achievement of a given state, entering into it. I got bored explaining this again and again.
Yes.
He revisits that what he has experienced recently was the disconnection of consciousness, perception and feeling.
Ok, maybe we’re quibbling over words, which I agree is not too helpful.
It’s your use of the word “experience” in the absence of consciousness that was being focused on, but we might be inadvertently talking past each other.
No problem.
Thanks for the discussion. 
I stop participating. I feel the sphere here is that a real buddhist, one who understands Dhamma, one who understands PS, one who understand not-self, etc. etc. will delight in going out like a flame with nothing remaining at death. It is the only escape of suffering.
It makes me sad. I feel it makes no sense to discuss this anymore because it only leads to hardering. I notice that my ideas about this are not appreciated or liked here.
It is also just not my heartwish to go out like a flame with nothing remaining.
Wish you all well.
Green
Some academics believe that the fixation on the extinction of consciousness was a later “contribution“ from converts from Jainism. The Buddha in arguably the oldest suttas didn’t state a position on what happens at death. That is why the Buddha’s consolations the Kalama sutta are conditional and why the Buddha did not answer questions regarding this and other worlds. He seems to have been more concerned about people meditating and experiencing the “end of the world” of the senses so as to come to accept whatever awaits us.
Rather, a real Buddhist will rejoice in fearlessness, equanimity and salvation from samsara. The taste of nibbana is enchanting.
I’m sorry that you didn’t feel it. Maybe you weren’t looking from a different angle.
I have found many here who hold your view. And the audience communicates very correctly. But this view is not in line with the teachings of the Buddha. I am telling you this after about 10 years of studying the Dhamma.
The Buddha taught to look at nibbana only from an impersonal point of view. Thus he compares the aggregates with branches and sticks that are thrown into the fire. We cannot say that we are burned and thrown into the fire when sticks and leaves are thrown. We don’t come up with that. After all, sticks and leaves are empty, futile, unimportant, they are not us, they have nothing to do with us, and they are of no value to us. Exactly the same attitude must be developed in you towards the aggregates in order to at least theoretically understand the essence of nibbana. Otherwise you will fall into one of the extreme views. either you think that the “I” is preserved in nibbana or that the “I” is destroyed in it, but in fact only leaves and sticks are burned, nothing else.
We think we exist as a whole. in fact, the moment of chitta arises and immediately dies. Nothing is transferred from one chitta to another. A new citta is born similar to the previous one, just as a seal impression is similar to a seal. Every moment the complex of cittas is renewed and that “I”, which was now in a moment has already gone out and the next “I” is completely new. In general, in this case, we can no longer speak of any “I”, since the idea of "I" requires a duration, a length of existence. And so in an hour, a minute, a year or 100 years, you will not be. even now your body is not you, your mind is not you. And in the past it wasn’t you. The feeling of I-am is a cunning illusion. Therefore, you cannot be destroyed in a hypothetical nibbana, since you will not survive the next moment as an entity.
Craving makes things important. It is craving that makes you adore life, sensible objects and ideas. She gives meaning to everything. But craving has a downside - anger, fear, mental suffering. Craving makes us dance in a frying pan, run, fuss. It creates a tense fist inside, in the very heart. Imagine how good it would be to unclench this fist, to calm down. When you have no craving, many things will lose their meaning, you will look at many things differently. for example, nibbana will be seen for you as a rest, salvation, refuge, a safe haven. and the cessation of perception as the highest pleasure. For that, you need to know well the truth of suffering.
You may not be ready to get into nibbana yet. this also happens. But you must not bend the Dhamma to suit your unwillingness - this is an unskillful act. You just have to admit that you are not ready and practice for the sake of wisdom and purification of the mind. Accumulate merit through metta, dana, strength and bhavana with this intent. The Buddha taught not only Arahantship, but also the fruit of anagamin. Anagamin is born in the realm of the pure lands, where the brahmas contemplate nibbana and abide in bliss for innumerable myriads of years. This period is enough to be disappointed in aggregates and get fed up with everything. Wisdom and satiety will naturally change your point of view. Many have been taught by the Buddha to achieve divine realms or a happy life in the here and now. Nibbana is not for everyone. But you can’t adjust nibbana for yourself, you just need to understand your inclination.
Be happy
Also if that salvation from samsara is no different from going out like a flame without anything remaining?
I don’t mean to be rude, but it is a Western commonplace to view Buddhism as pessimistic, nihilist, quietest, etc. You have not discovered something that has been looked over … anywhere. There is a very well known scholar of Buddhist studies who so many people are indebted to because of one of his books. He “converted” back to Catholicism about a decade ago, because he decided, after all that, Buddhism offers no hope. If I recall, he was warmed by the idea of joining his wife after death, and in the end that’s what he decided to found his faith upon.
In a serie of posts called Interfaith Perspective we touched upon this subject again:
@Jasudho said:
Some remarks,
Well, then you are apparantly absolutely sure that this view of parinibbana as a mere cessation is what the Buddha really taught? If not, maybe this view is a distortion of Dhamma, and how can that not enhance ignorance? Are we sure it is not a distortion?
I do not tend to this view of a mere cessation, but i also cannot say i am sure the Buddha did not teach that parinibbana is a mere cessation.
I feel it is hard to say when one only bases oneself upon the EBT texts. One can hammer out this Dhamma and it might seem logic and consistent, appealing to intellect, but i feel in this proces of reasoning one can also make other chooses and come to other conclusions.
Anyway, i do not think it is wise to rely on reasoning and logic only.
But i feel it is also quit awkward to take refuge in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha while not knowing where this Path leads. To a mere cessation?
I also hope, like venerable @mudita said in the mentioned serie of posts, that this issue will be solved once and for all.
No, just as we may assume you’re not “absolutely” sure either!
The point was simply to express the sincerity of practitioners who have a different view than you.
The practitioners who have the view of cessation are not just relying “on reasoning and logic.” as you seem to imply. They’re practicing the Path, contemplating the teachings in the suttas, and cultivating samadhi and wisdom.
May we and all beings be happy and at ease.
Does it help your practice and peace of mind to get so caught up in how others are practicing, since you wrote that you’re not sure either?
You may wish to consider easing up a bit, enjoying and deepening your practice, seeing where it leads… 
Well, with respect, it may be your view that’s mistaken!
And since you admit to not being absolutely sure, and since only arahants “know for sure”, the gentle suggestion was to consider lightening up so your mind can relax – setting up conditions for deeper ease, tranquility, clarity, and wisdom.
But that’s up to you, āvuso, it’s your choice.
Remember, in MN 1 the Buddha gave a deep, beautiful teaching and, in the end, the listeners got up and left, not liking what they heard.
Did the Buddha frantically try to convince them because they had wrong view or no view? No. The sutta doesn’t say so.
Does the sutta say he lost sleep about this or became agitated and worked up? No.
Did this mean he was uncaring? No.
He taught, as others have come to know, that being agitated by the views of others is unskillful and is a form of dukkha. Teaching and caring, yes. Agitation and over-concern, no.
Is your mind at ease when you press on about this issue? Or is it affected by agitation and anxiety?
Either way, what you do about this in your life-practice is up to you.
And the same for everyone else on the Way.
The Buddha met many beings who disbelieved his teachings and even some who mocked him, yet he continued to teach, care, and help while being happy and at ease.
A wonderful and inspiring example for us all – if we choose to follow it.
Be well.
Just noticed this, and want to point out the so called nikaya collections EBT never directly deny the existence of Self, it’s the translation, interpretation and inference based on personal knowledge that stretches to the wrong conclusion. on the contrary, from my personal readings, everywhere in the EBT seems to confirm the existence of Self, which enters nibbana of course. That’s why I always retranslate as I read along. FYI.
This is definitely a [citation needed] comment
[… ]
Then the Buddha said to the mendicants: “Come now, mendicants, I say to you all: ‘Conditions fall apart. Persist with diligence.’”These were the Realized One’s last words.
Then the Buddha entered the first absorption. Emerging from that, he entered the second absorption. Emerging from that, he successively entered into and emerged from the third absorption, the fourth absorption, the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness, and the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Then he entered the cessation of perception and feeling.
Then he emerged from the cessation of perception and feeling and entered the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Emerging from that, he successively entered into and emerged from the dimension of nothingness, the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of infinite space, the fourth absorption, the third absorption, the second absorption, and the first absorption. Emerging from that, he successively entered into and emerged from the second absorption and the third absorption. Then he entered the fourth absorption. Emerging from that the Buddha immediately became fully extinguished.
[…] SN 6.15
It may or may not be that people base themselves on the texts, but generally people leave out personal preferences or ideas because… well, it’s called SUTTAcentral discourse for a reason.
The Main Theme of this Site is Early Buddhism
We are interested in discussing early Buddhist texts, their meaning and historical context, how these teachings evolve and relate to later traditions, and how they may be applied in the present day. If you’re interested in more general Buddhist discussion, there are plenty of other great forums out there.
As you’ve probably noticed, once we start reverting back to personal opinions, the discussion quickly becomes unmoored, because then almost anything goes. But when we focus on the texts we have a common and objective ground that we can base a discussion on.
Some people may find that limiting. If so… well, as the community guidelines say, there are other forums out there. 
On a Dutch forum, some time ago, participants said i relied to much on the EBT texts. I studied them to much, and refered to them to much. I was seen as a exegeet. Quit funny that people here believe i rely to little on the texts. For myself i know this is not true. I can also explain my choices and relate them to EBT. I have did this many times.
The point is: it is not like we all come to the same understanding of Buddha-Dhamma when we read the same texts. Even translators and teachers do not. But you can also see it here with the participants.
It is very hard for us, that’s all i believe, to respect a different understanding or to open oneself in a such a vulnerable way that one might be wrong in how one understands Dhamma.
The idea that parinibbana is a mere cessation is, for me, also based upon personal preference and ideas. I have seen the reasoning and logic people use for this position. I have seen that it is subjective. One can really make other choices, use other reasoning. And i have done so. I am not going to repeat it anymore.
But i notice this is unwelcome. Apparantly we must all agree on parinibbana as a mere cessation. Or we must agree that it is not pessimistic to strive for a mere cessation.