Yeos,
Thank you for your comment.
- “As for viññāna all the consulted translations lead to the following
It can’t be equated to Nibanna. How could ?”-
I am aware of that.
To which I say: If vinnana can’t be equated with Nibbana, what is? Are we doomed to accept the overly-sophisticated, pseudo-scholarly, SEEMINGLY- profound because impossible to conceive of, metaphysical NONSENSE of the Mahayanista? Because that is what it boils down to if nothing remains at Arahanthood: non-difference, dissolution, evaporation, extinction, annihilation (of consciousness and every other quality).
To wit, Yeos: If anything remains at Arahanthood, the Arahant must be conscious or aware of it, otherwise it is for Him as good as non-existent.If nothing in Him remains, then He Himself is as good as non-existent. But Nibbana is NOT non-existence. Cannot be. I hope we are agreed on THAT. And if Nibbana WERE non-existence, then better strive for a good deva or brahma bhava instead – at least final non-existence would have been preceded by a term of felicity (a double whisky before the hanging !! )
Metta