SuttaCentral
I sugges you read it.
There is a quote from Nagarjuna in that book:
“Nirvana is Samsara. Samsara is Nirvana.”
Rest assured we know next to nothing about Buddhism. Be patient. Look at it, contemplate it from different perspectives, including Upanishads, your own tradition, and other schools of Buddhism. It is supposedly a difficult long path.
I’m well familiar with this aphorism. 
Suffice to say I don’t agree with it!
Samsara is dukkha. Dukkha arises and ceases. Absence of dukkha is possible. Absence of dukkha is called nibbāna. This is the basis of our soteriology. Refusing this, we have no grounds to talk.
“A meditator who has crossed beyond saṁsāra –
This dangerous, difficult domain of delusion and death –
Unagitated, free of uncertainty, enlightened through non-attachment –
That one I call a brahmin." Snp3.9
It doesn’t have to be. Not today. Nothing is necessary forever, not even an “apparent” difficulty. Underestimating Mara is just as dangerous as overestimating her. Better to go into it all with a clear and fearless heart. Endless intellectual discussion on this and that muddles the clear heart. We can seek simple words for difficult concepts, the clear heart will understand. These simple words are everywhere and are as powerful as a 84,000 treatises.
Fewness of wishes, friends.
Why did the Buddha choose to teach his findings and to make other people aware?
But I thought he only said that no self could be found in the five aggregates. No?
All dhammas are not self. The world is empty of self.
Can you use the model I presented above to say what’s your thesis of the dhamma should look like then?
I think I presented it very clearly already. I don’t see how it can still be misunderstood. No self is already mentioned in the OP. The mistaken of 2 to be 1 is already mentioned. The middle of 2 and 3 between 1 and 4 are mentioned.
Do you posit that after the death of arahant, only the body of the arahant goes to 3 but the mind of the arahant still is in 2 or promoted to 1? Because 2 is inherently impermanent and anything in 2 must cease to 3 and then arise back to 2. But parinibbāna is supposed to be freed from this impermanence. If parinibbāna is not cessation of all, then the only option left is 1. There’s a true self in parinibbāna.
Or you will have to introduce a 5th line, and define clearly the characteristics of it and explain why being existing, happy, and permanent, it is still not a self.
No suttas, but I find this map unsatisfactory. #1 and #2 I get, but #3 is… not defined. #4 is a paradox. There can be nothing classified as #4 how you’ve defined it. But then you go ahead and do that with no self as an instance of #4.
I think this is what you’re trying to say:
Is that what you’re trying to say? That no self is #4 and parinibbana makes the aggregates go from #2 to #4?
Sorry, I am not very sensitive to the philosophy, I don’t see how your mapping is different from mine.
If you like, Parinibbāna is 3 forever but never going back to 2. Which is as good as 4, but if there’s some strong philosophical reason for parinibbāna not to be in 4, I don’t mind.
In the spirit of what Ven. @Vaddha pointed out here: Brahmavihārā are dukkhā - #25 by Vaddha One can say that the aggregates are always stuck at 2. It can at most not appear in 2, which then I map it to 3.
In terms of the Buddha’s classification of the world being the 6 senses, then only 2 is actually the all, the world. And 1, 3 and 4 are just figments of our imagination. 3 has to be seen in 2 as the non-arising of anything anymore. Strictly speaking also, since mind objects are included in the world, 1, 3, and 4 being mind objects of concepts are also in the world. It gets a bit convoluted. I just hope that separating it like this can be a bit more clear on how we talk about things.
I suspect you keep on mapping what I said in 2 to be 1 whenever I use the word “exist” and you also put self in 2, so you mapping 5 aggregates and self to be empty, like foam, etc is sharing characteristics of 2. But I would map what I said of the 5 aggregates to be in 2, and then the (ultimate) self which is not existent belongs in 4, thus cannot share any characteristics with the 5 aggregates (other than not self), as it is not found. 5 aggregates are found in the sense of experience is, 6 sense contacts are. But I can see you’re going to see I am saying aggregates are in 1 again. 
Anyway, with this framework, maybe we can have less misunderstandings between us.
Okay wait.
This is a post joke, btw, but it’s useful to analyse the depths of these arguments ad absurdum.
Ah I see the weakness of Ven. @Vaddha’s way of saying things now. Anyway, I am glad this framework is quite useful to clear up philosophical discussions on existence vs non-existence, truly vs dependently.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to, ven. I’m not saying that things cannot cease though, as should be clear. I’m just saying the cessation of anything is conditioned and therefore part of a continuum, not the end of one, insofar as we can extrapolate a “continuum” as a real thing out there. This is what you are calling ‘dependent cessation,’ i.e. 3 on the list. So I don’t deny that despite what our friend @Dogen said, perhaps in jest!
BTW, from what I’ve read the commentaries to DN 1 also state the annihilationist view can arise from taking a string of events as a solid continuous thing. You can check Bhikkhu Bodhi’s summary at pages 28-30 at this link. So if you want an Abhidhamma-friendly account of how “continuum” should not be reified, there is an example.
Once we start going down the “continuums really exist” route, we start going down the path of creating an entity which changes. I think we should use continuum as a merely functional word without ontological commitments.
Dependent arising and dependent ceasing (2 and 3 on your list) go hand and hand. They don’t contradict. True existence and true cessation (1 and 4) contradict one another.
I think the important thing we miss out on this discussion is observance.
In this fashion, six-sense based contact is respected, and it allows an arahat attain nibbāna.
This also explains how an arahat is beyond proliferation after enlightenment, since from the perspective of arahat, inner sense media stops observing itself, so there is not even an observation of this non-observation.
In this schematic, crude functions cease first, existing only as mind media, then even as a mind object it ceases, until there’s no observation anymore.
The claim here is of course, 1 doesn’t exist. All that is thought of as 1 is actually 2. And both 3 and 4 being unobserved really does justify my not minding on which one parinibbāna actually is in.
Maybe it would be helpful to discuss why annihilationism is a wrong view?
If our view is that something truly ceases (#4), then it means we believe existence turns into non-existence. We violate conditionality, in the same way that thinking something real arises from real nothing violates causality. Which requires the belief in a self. Which is a fetter. Which means that we cannot escape suffering. Which means that parinibbāna is actually impossible.
If we insist on believing that dukkha is real (#1) and so must be destroyed (#4), we would be holding a view which is a “thicket of views” and an obstacle to liberation.
“Look upon the world as empty,
Mogharājā, ever mindful.
Having uprooted the view of self,
you may thus cross over death.
That’s how to look upon the world
so the King of Death won’t see you.”
Snp 5.16
We can’t escape dukkha by thinking it must be destroyed into non-existence. We have to remove ourselves from the situation. We have to stop bothering dukkha.
So just put it as from 2 to 3. That’s it.
Shhh! Don’t wake the dukkha! 
Yes! Exactly. Dependent arising and dependent ceasing. This is the teaching of the Lord Buddha.
But we can’t just say that now! 
We have to mean it!
The cleansed one has no formulated view
at all in the world about the different realms.
Having given up illusion and conceit,
by what path would they go? They are not involved.
For one who is involved gets embroiled
in disputes about teachings—
but how to dispute with the uninvolved?
About what?
For picking up and putting down
is not what they do;
they have shaken off all views in this very life.
Snp 4.3
The brahmin has stepped over the boundary;
knowing and seeing, they adopt nothing.
Neither in love with passion
nor besotted by dispassion,
there is nothing here they adopt as the ultimate.
Snp 4.4
I don’t think a process truly ceasing as the same thing as a thing being destroyed.
Entropy from the perspective of a glass is a good example. If we view Glass as a Real Thing (TM Dhamma Inc.) (1), then when broken, it’s a (4). It can never be put back together. My precious glass!
However, it used to be a pile of sand, crushed together, solidified, shaped. (2) Once broken, the conditions that held it together are no longer true, so the Glass ceases to be (3).
Wonderful! Nothing ever truly arises so nothing ever truly ceases! Illusory-like arising. Illusory-like ceasing. Conditioned arising. Conditioned ceasing. The middle way.
…
Now explain the unconditioned 
PS I kidd… I kidd…
The presence of conditions is the absence of conditions. Because there are conditions, that’s why we can say “no conditions.” Because there are no conditions, that’s why we call them “conditions.”
