Анатта

а вот я много нового узнала именно из этого форума и еще больше нашла здесь тем для дальнейшего изучения.

Под "токсичной средой" не очень понимаю, что вы подразумеваете.

Токсичны ли другие мнения других людей?

Речь идет
Тут говорится о
А слова
Разговор зашел о

ммм как Вы считаете, состояние ниродха-самапатти в чем то подобно

по сути, весь буддизм - это всего лишь философское словоблудие теоретиков от сутр и шастр?

зачем до достижения ниббаны пытаться ее себе как то представить и создавать концепции не совсем ясно.

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, let him not conceive things about Unbinding, let him not conceive things in Unbinding, let him not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, let him not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' let him not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you."

Прекращение существования (bhavanirodho) у него - это только лишь прекращение бывания в трех мирах.

Максим Фурин, как-то у вас все максималистичненько.

Вот я никак не могу понять, почему идут такие горячие споры по КЛЮЧЕВЫМ положениям буддизма? Почему у разных учителей, который их последователи считают РЕАЛИЗОВАННЫМИ в Дхамме,  зачастую почти противоположные взгляды? Например, по вопросу о судьбе Архата после смерти?
Ведь в буддизме мудрость постигает йогической практикой - и в итоге реализованный йогин должен знать истину, в том числе и о нирване с остатком и без.
Иначе выходит, что даже йогическая мудрость, полученная в результате медитаций, обусловлена теоретическими воззрениями конкретной школы (секты и т.п.)? И тогда, по сути, весь буддизм - это всего лишь философское словоблудие теоретиков от сутр и шастр?

прекращение жажды несуществования ведет к чему? - к прекращению существования.

В Висуддхимагге bhavataṇhā объясняется как страсть к объекту чувств (форма, запах, вкус и проч.) на основе взгляда о вечности этого объекта, vibhavataṇhā как страсть на основе взгляда о полном уничтожении этого объекта.
http://www.theravada.su/node/1365/

Consciousness without surface (viññanam anidassanam): This term appears to be related to the following image from SN 12.64 :
"Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"
"On the western wall, lord."
"And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"
"On the ground, lord."
"And if there is no ground, where does it land?"
"On the water, lord."
"And if there is no water, where does it land?"
"It does not land, lord."
"In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food ... contact ... intellectual intention ... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or grow. Where consciousness does not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form does not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."

In other words, normal sencery consciousness is experienced because it has a "surface" against which it lands: the sense organs and their objects, which constitute the "all." For instance, we experience visual consciousness because of the eye and forms of which we are conscious. Consciousness without surface, however, is directly known, without intermediary, free from any dependence on conditions at all.

This consciousness thus differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media. Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future.

And, as
SN 35.23 notes, the word "all" in the Buddha's teaching crs only the six sense media, which is another reason for not including this consciousness under the aggregates.

However, the fact that it is outside of time and space — in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between (Ud I.10 ), no coming, no going, or staying ( Ud VIII.1 ) — means that it cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning only within space and time.

Some have objected to the equation of this consciousness with nibbana, on the grounds that nibbana is nowhere else in the Canon described as a form of consciousness. Thus they have proposed that consciousness without surface be regarded as an arahant's consciousness of nibbana in meditative experience, and not nibbana itself. This argument, however, contains a flaw: If nibbana is an object of mental consciousness (as a dhamma), it would come under the all, as an object of the intellect. There are passages in the Canon (such as AN 9.36 ) that describe meditators experiencing nibbana as a dhamma, but these passages seem to indicate that this description applies up through the level of non-returning.

Other passages, however, describe nibbana as the ending of all dhammas. For instance, Sn V.6 quotes the Buddha as calling the attainment of the goal the transcending of all dhammas. Sn IV.6 and Sn IV.10 state that the arahant has transcended dispassion, said to be the highest dhamma.

Thus, for the arahant, nibbana is not an object of consciousness. Instead it is directly known without mediation. Because consciousness without feature is directly known without mediation, there seems good reason to equate the two.