Nibbana experienced at mind-sense base... NOT

[Spiny Norman]

What then could cognize it if not manāyatana? To propose another āyatana would be to make Nibbāna into a visible object, sound, taste, odour or tangible. To propose an agent of cognition outside the āyatanas would be to posit another "all".

Though passages like this seem to suggest another ayatana, a field of experience which is outside the All, outside the usual six ayanatas:

“There is that sphere, monks, where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air, no sphere of infinite space, no sphere of infinite consciousness, no sphere of nothingness, no sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, no this world, no world beyond, neither Moon nor Sun. There, monks, I say there is surely no coming, no going, no persisting, no passing away, no rebirth It is quite without support, unmoving, without an object,—just this is the end of suffering.”
https://suttacentral.net/ud8.1/en/anandajoti

“There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned.”
https://suttacentral.net/ud8.3/en/anandajoti

[Spiny Norman]

It’s obvious that the absence of greed, hate, and delusion is something to be known by the mind.

I would describe these as qualities of the mind ( citta ), bearing in mind the third frame of the Satipatthana Sutta. Though the qualities ( "symptoms" ) of something are not necessarily the thing itself.

So in this sense, Nibbana is an object of the mind.

I don't think that follows, since this would make Nibbana like a transient thought or feeling, something conditioned.

[Polar Bear]

It’s obvious that the absence of greed, hate, and delusion is something to be known by the mind.

I would describe these as qualities of the mind ( citta ), bearing in mind the third frame of the Satipatthana Sutta. Though the qualities ( "symptoms" ) of something are not necessarily the thing itself.

So in this sense, Nibbana is an object of the mind.

I don't think that follows, since this would make Nibbana like a transient thought or feeling, something conditioned.

Of course the liberated mind has the quality of being free of greed, hate, and delusion. And this can be known by the mind. In other words, the mind can know it is liberated. Since nibbana is defined as freedom from greed, hatred, and delusion, then knowing such freedom is knowing nibbana. Of course, the knowing is a transient recognition of a permanent freedom. The arahant will never again be subject to greed, hate, and delusion. This is permanent.

[User1249x]

It’s obvious that the absence of greed, hate, and delusion is something to be known by the mind.

I would describe these as qualities of the mind ( citta ), bearing in mind the third frame of the Satipatthana Sutta. Though the qualities ( "symptoms" ) of something are not necessarily the thing itself.

So in this sense, Nibbana is an object of the mind.

I don't think that follows, since this would make Nibbana like a transient thought or feeling, something conditioned.

I have no doubt that the Vinnana Anidassana or Nibbana when referred to as the base where elements gain no footing is outside of all.
However i also agree with Polar Bear in that in the world the Delusion is known as a quality of Mind, therefore absence and removal of Delusion is also associated with Mind. In that sense i think that to a being attainment of Cessation will be recognized by it's function which is removal of delusion, anger and desire.

This is the only explaination i can offer. I am however quite certain about the notions of X outside of all.
Here is an excerpt from commentary to sabba sutta;

Secondly, the Commentary includes nibbana (unbinding) within the scope of the All described here — as a dhamma, or object of the intellect — even though there are many other discourses in the Canon specifically stating that nibbana lies beyond the range of the six senses and their objects. Sn 5.6, for instance, indicates that a person who has attained nibbana has gone beyond all phenomena (sabbe dhamma), and therefore cannot be described. MN 49 discusses a "consciousness without feature" (viññanam anidassanam) that does not partake of the "Allness of the All." Furthermore, the following discourse (SN 35.24) says that the "All" is to be abandoned.

I think the takeaway is to realize that the word Nibbana has three meanings relative to this discussion
1. Destruction of delusion - Explained above
2. Cessation/extinguishing - Obviously a state of "All" in that it is attained by a being, as in the end of the world is of the world
3. The base where no elements nor namarupa - Beyond the world, beyond time, unaffected, unconditioned. Being beyond time it doesn't occur after cessation, because there can be no "after" after the end of time.

[sentinel]

Alternatively , one can says extinguishing of greed hatred and delusion is called Nibbana but metaphorically . Because , while alive the description term should be Liberation .

When the aggregates of an arahant break up , no more future birth that is Nibbana or Parinibbana .
If there's no more future birth , where is the state of Nibbana ?

[User1249x]

Alternatively , one can says extinguishing of greed hatred and delusion is called Nibbana but metaphorically . Because , while alive the description term should be Liberation .

When the aggregates of an arahant break up , no more future birth that is Nibbana or Parinibbana .
If there's no more future birth , where is the state of Nibbana ?

In case of Parinibbana the meaning would be Final Cessation/Extinguishing, as in final extinguishing of the World or final extinguishing of the All and there is no after that, all that was is over, came to an end, is finished, is exhausted, is extinguished, has gone out of existence, does not exist anymore.

"What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left.

"Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant... completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbana-element with no residue left.

"These, bhikkhus, are the two Nibbana-elements."

These two Nibbana-elements were made known
By the Seeing One, stable and unattached:
One is the element seen here and now
With residue, but with the cord of being destroyed;
The other, having no residue for the future,
Is that wherein all modes of being utterly cease.

Having understood the unconditioned state,
Released in mind with the cord of being destroyed,
They have attained to the Dhamma-essence.
Delighting in the destruction (of craving),
Those stable ones have abandoned all being.

[cappuccino]

and there is no after that

Your view is annihilationism

(the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness)

On Self, No Self, and Not-self

[User1249x]

false accusations and unsubstantiated claims are reducing the quality of discussion and are against the ToS

[cappuccino]

or final extinguishing of the All and there is no after that

"no after that" is annihilation

(this teaching is very subtle and difficult)

[User1249x]

or final extinguishing of the All and there is no after that

"no after that" is annihilation

as i explained what is meant is that after does not apply if the cessation of time is postulated.
If time itself comes to an end; then there is no basis for a future.
Therefore saying that something is after cessation of time, it just does not apply.

I have already explained this;

3. The base where no elements nor namarupa - Beyond the world, beyond time, unaffected, unconditioned. Being beyond time it doesn't occur after cessation, because there can be no "after" after the end of time.

Therefore you should point out the flaw in my reasoning in regards to this or be quiet.

[cappuccino]

if someone is beyond time and unaffected, this implies they exist somehow

although not existing as we exist

[User1249x]

if someone is beyond time and unaffected, this implies they exist somehow

although not existing as we exist

1. It is not someone who is beyond time
Sabba dhamma anatta
But yes there is a;

"'Consciousness without surface,
endless, radiant all around,
has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.'

i have explained that this Dhamma is a reality in itself and is beyond time and has therefore no duration to speak of. I have also explained how it can be shown to exist.

Where do water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing?
Where are long & short,
coarse & fine,
fair & foul,
name & form
brought to an end?
"'And the answer to that is:


Consciousness without feature,
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of consciousness
each is here brought to an end.'"

[cappuccino]

consciousness without feature is a state of mind

one who realizes Nirvana retains that state of mind

everlasting

[User1249x]

consciousness without feature is a state of mind

one who realizes Nirvana retains that state of mind

everlasting

Nibbana is not a state of mind if that is to imply that Nibbana is one thing and Mind is another.
IE; Anger is a state of mind, Anger is one thing Mind is another.
This is not the case for Nibbana.
Nibbana is a single X.

If you want to say Nibbana is Mind, you avoid this dichotomy but you also run into a lot of complications. IE;

"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir."

“But, indeed, that which, monks, is called ‘mind’, or ‘thought’, or ‘consciousness’, [4] the ordinary person, in every way unlearned in spiritual knowledge, not enough to turn away, not enough to become detached, not enough to be released. What is the reason for this? Because for a long time, monks, that ‘mind’, or ‘thought’, or ‘consciousness’ of the ordinary person, in every way unlearned in spiritual knowledge, has been clung to, has been cherished, has been fondled: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’. Because of that, the ordinary person, in every way unlearned in spiritual knowledge, not enough to turn away, not enough to become detached, not enough to be released.

Full explicit contradiction requiring an explanation.

If you maintain that something is everlasting without a duration without a further explanation, people will just say you are irrational and dismiss your argument.

Basically if you maintain the position of "Nibbana = Mind" + "Beyond Time = Everlasting", you end up with a "Everlasting Mind", people will call wrong view of Eternal Citta.

[cappuccino]

Nirvana is said to be everlasting

that's not eternal ism

eternal ism is about constancy of identity

(identity is inconstant)