SuttaCentral
Because of this:
“Happiness, friends, is this nibbāna. Happiness, friends, is this nibbāna.”
When this was said, the Venerable Udāyī said to the Venerable Sāriputta: “But, friend Sāriputta, what happiness could there be here when nothing is felt here?”
“Just this, friend, is the happiness here, that nothing is felt here." (AN 9.34)
Sometimes you need to choose who to take as your primary teacher.
Stange as it may seem, it’s simply because neutral feeling is preferable.
But that fragment does not mean that the happiness of Nibbana is not known or tasted. This fragment only means, i belief, that the happiness of Nibbana it is not the same as sukha vedana, a pleasant feeling. ‘Nothing is felt’, means, i belief, there is not the burden of cognition, the processing of sense-info. But has everything ceased? (Then it also cannot be known directly ofcourse).
I still doubt your conclusion:
Is this knowledge really directly known or is it derived intellectual knowledge?
Thank you. This is very helpful. 
@Green sorry to interrupt sir 
Maybe it is directly known without the presence of knower in a way that presence of knower will be an obstacle in reaching there. (In other words that state itself is not characterized by presence of knower)
I think it is derived intellectual knowledge, but for people like us only and not for the one who has known it directly.
I think here instead of ‘parinibbana’, ‘nibbana here and now’ would make it easy to understand. (I hope I am not wrong)
Reason :
sannavedayitanirodha is ‘‘an attainment which a noble one may cultivate; the peace it gives is reckoned as nibbana here and now.’’
-translation from Nanamoli, The Path of Purification, p. 833.
So maybe Saññavedayitanirodha can be understood as nibbana here and now, instead of ‘parinibbana’ which is final one, as it occurs at the time of death of arhat.
Yeah, just gunna chime in and say that if you have any questions about what Luangta taught, it’s better to ask one of his disciples. Ajahn Brahmali is in a slightly different branch of the Thai Forest Tradition.
Respected sir, one question…plz answer me.
I have read that person who is stream-enterer is not necessarily having jhanas. So in a same way…Is it the case that only arhat can enter ‘saññavedayitanirodha’? Or can someone who is not an arhat, also enter it? Thank you.
“Reverends, take a mendicant who is accomplished in ethics, immersion, and wisdom. They might enter into and emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling. There is such a possibility. If they don’t reach enlightenment in this very life, they’re reborn in the company of a certain host of mind-made gods, who surpass the gods that consume solid food. There they might enter into and emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling. That is possible.”
Wow thank you sir! This means people like me also have a chance to reach there. This is satisfying. 
I hope you know that the sutta is referring to non returners.
As the common saying goes, those who are able to attain to the cessation of perception and feeling, after emerging either becomes an arahant or if there’s any clinging left for the dhamma, a non-returner.
No I didn’t know that. I did not see mention of non-returner there. But if you are saying it must be definitely true. Sorry for saying that I might also have chance 
…It turns out that I said that out of ignorance about qualifications necessary. Thank you for correcting me bhante:pray:
Clinging for dhamma! Wow! I wasn’t aware of any such clinging. This I definitely didn’t know before. So clinging for dhamma can be one of the differentiating factor between non-returner and an arhant! I will save this permanently in my head.
Actually, what I wrote above is from general understanding that I learn. To relate to the sutta, the exact thing is the 5 higher fetters:
https://suttacentral.net/sn45.180/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false
Lust for form, lust for the formless, conceit, restlessness, ignorance.
It’s not easy to find exact sutta reference for that too. The most is a combination? The sutta below shows that cessation of perception and feelings,
And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. To this extent the Buddha spoke of extinguishment in the present life in a definitive sense.”
And combined with the earlier sutta which says those who has cessation is reborn in the company of mind made gods, it implies non-returner.
Why sorry?
My understanding is that normal people can attain to the cessation, then become ariyas. I think I got that from Ajahn Brahm’s retreat.
Ok got a sutta on 11 door to deathless: SuttaCentral
That’s where I got the clinging to dhamma from:
If he does not reach the elimination of the corruptions, then because of that passion for the Dhamma, because of that delight in the Dhamma, then with the complete elimination of the five lower fetters he becomes a spontaneous-reappearer; and there he will attain final Nibbāna without ever returning from that world
Since even lower levels of samadhi (lower than cessation of perception and feeling) can get to the deathless already, it’s definitely not hopeless.
So person can reach to nibbana through 8 jhanas, sphere of infinite space, infinite consciousness & nothingness as well. This is indeed marvellous.
Yes this understanding seems not contradictory at all and perfectly right to me atleast. As it gives room for everyone being able to attain these states.
Sir based on this one last question can be that, somewhere lord buddha said that(I don’t remember sutra name) ‘run of the mill person’ who goes to these realms and then after completely using up his lifespan there…after dying from there…falls in hell. I think lord said this with respect to every heavenly realm whether it be desire, form or formless(I don’t know for sure though). So what differentiates ‘run of the mill person’ from normal person who can reach deathless through these 11 doors? Because only the fact that person has attainments to be born there, does not assure that he will go to deathless afterwards for sure and not fall in hell after dying from there. In short my question is, while achieving some (certain not hopeless states) how can normal person(like me) avoid being ‘run of the mill person’? Plz try shedding light on this sir. Thank you.
Oh you mean 4 Jhanas and you counted the 4 Brahmavihara separately? Better not use the term of 8 Jhanas for those 2 sets of 4.
I am not 100% sure, but likely it’s vipassana practise. Having right view of impermanence, suffering and not self, and use the deep samatha mind to investigate the true reality of the all. Do study under a qualified teacher for those deep meditations!
My mistake!..I will keep this in mind sir…
Yes this seems to be right. Also not having qualified teacher may also contribute in being run of the mill person…I guess! Ok I think this solves my question. Thank you sir.
Thanks for that.
Some context: One can read so many different interpretations of jhana, Nibbana, sannavedayitanirodha. I myself do not think that their nature or real meaning depends on the teacher or tradition. I belief it depends on real expertise or not.
The meaning of such things cannot be found in scriptures and one does not know anything yet about jhana, Nibbana, sannavedayitanirodha reading descriptions. I feel this is not protected enough. I belief people start making claims about the nature of Nibbana, jhana, sannavedayitanirodha based on textual descriptions without personal real knowledge of it. This creates a mess. A wilderniss of views.
And people who study Dhamma do not know anymore what to belief. They do not know anymore what is real expertise, and i feel, that is what we all seek and need.
Ofcourse we need to become our own experts on Dhamma but i also feel we all have a responsibility not to pretent to be an expert when one has no personal knowledge of something. “I do not know” is oke, right? It is often more to the point than all that socalled knowledge.
Exactly right! I do not know is what we need. It’s 1000 times better than misinterpreting. I think accepting that we don’t know is the only way to knowing something really…even if in future. This is a very important quality sir. I think one of the main point of our discussions is that/should be to not grasp something in wrong way atleast, even if we cannot grasp it in right way.
There is also this text in MN43:
“When someone dies, their physical, verbal, and mental processes have ceased and stilled; their vitality is spent; their warmth is dissipated; and their faculties have disintegrated. When a mendicant has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, their physical, verbal, and mental processes have ceased and stilled. But their vitality is not spent; their warmth is not dissipated; and their faculties are very clear. That’s the difference between someone who has passed away and a mendicant who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling.”
What does it mean that the faculties are very clear in sannavedyaitanirodha? That they have ceased?
You may need to be more mindful and review the answers and advices above, out of respect for ajahn, it’s inappropriate for further questions here. There are different views and interpretations on this matter.
Thanks, Venerable @Brahmali for taking the time to respond to us! The below may sounds a bit argumentative.
It seems like there are multiple places in the EBTs where the Buddha seems to say that nibbana is impossible to fully describe in words. Is this a misunderstanding on my part?
For example, in SN 44.1 the Buddha affirms a nun’s description of the Buddha after parinibbana (death) as follows:
“That feeling [perception, volitional formations, consciousness] by which one describing the Tathagata might describe him … has been abandoned by the Tathagata, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated so that it is no more subject to future arising. The Tathagata, great king, is liberated from reckoning in terms of consciousness; he is deep, immeasurable, hard to fathom like the great ocean. ‘The Tathagata exists after death’ does not apply; ‘the Tathagata does not exist after death’ does not apply; ‘the Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death’ does not apply; ‘the Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death’ does not apply.”
It seems like if all there is to the Buddha at the time of death (parinibbana) is nothingness, it would be fair to say that the Buddha doesn’t exist after death. It also seems like the Buddha wouldn’t have said the Tathagata is deep, immeasurable, hard to fathom like the great ocean in the context of discussing his death if all there was to nibbana is nothingness and cessation?
I seem to recall some other teachers saying something like nibbana is something that has to be experienced and can’t be fully described in words. What do you think about that statement?
Thanks again for attempting to answer our questions in a difficult context of only using the written word.
