1) "... the hassle over 'do I exist, don't I exist' is not worth it."
-- This is not the hassle over 'do
I exist, don't I exist' . Nibbana is the unconditioned, in which "I" and "exist" don't apply at all. The unconditioned should not be confused with the conditioned. This is the "hassle" to clarify whether or not nibbana is the annihilation of the awareness or (unestablished) consciousness, to avoid the wrong view and wrong practice of regarding the annihilation of awareness as nibbana. Would it be due to 1) the confusion of the Buddha's teachings on the conditioned (the all) with those on the unconditioned (nibbana), and 2) the misinterpretation of "not to have a fetter of views [regarding the conditioned as nibbana]" into "not having any views/understandings regarding nibbana (the unconditioned)", which has led to such wrong view and wrong practice of regarding "pitch-black emptiness" as nibbana and this kind of experience as supramundane fruitions?
2) Should we have a view (right view) about nibbnana at all?
"MN 72 Aggivacchagotta Sutta informs us that any view regarding the postmortem existence or non-existence of an arahant is a fetter of view (diṭṭhisaṃyojana) which doesn't lead to direct gnosis, to awakening, to nibbāna:
The view that after death a tathāgata exists is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a vacillation of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by dissatisfaction, distress, despair, and fever. It does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna.
The view that after death a tathāgata does not exist is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a vacillation of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by dissatisfaction, distress, despair, and fever. It does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna.
The view that after death a tathāgata both exists and does not exist is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a vacillation of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by dissatisfaction, distress, despair, and fever. It does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna.
The view that after death a tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a vacillation of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by dissatisfaction, distress, despair, and fever. It does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna."
-- Please note these four views are only about "existence"/"non-existence" (which apply only to the conditioned phenomena), which don't apply to nibbana at all. Then of course, these views are not right views about nibbana, and are called "a thicket of views, ...".
"Post-mortem continuum for an arahant" is not the continuum of any conditioned phenomena [ "existence"/"non-existence"], but the unconditioned, nibbana. Yes, nibbana is beyong our experience and description. We should not speculate about nibbana. But we should understand what nibbana is/isn't, and what we are discussing here is merely about what nibbana is/isn't. Yes, we should not conceive nibbana. But we are NOT trying to identify the unconditioned as "I", "mine", or 'do I exist, don't I exist', which don't apply to the unconditioned at all.
Actually the Buddha, to my knowledge, explained nibbana to us in many suttas. In MN 1, he clearly defined the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person as one who has not known nibbana, and instead he defined the trainee (the noble disciples) as one who directly knows nibbana, but yet to comprehend it without conceit:
[The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person ...]
He perceives Nibbana as Nibbana. Perceiving Nibbana as Nibbana, he conceives Nibbana, he conceives [“I am”] in Nibbana, he conceives [“I am”] apart from Nibbana, he conceives Nibbana as 'mine,' he delights in Nibbana. Why is that? B
ecause he has not comprehended it, I tell you. [Please note even for an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person, the Buddha didn't say he should not perceive nibbana, but only he shouldn't conceive nibbana and he should try to know and comprehend nibbana].
The Trainee ...
He directly knows Nibbana as Nibbana. Directly knowing Nibbana as Nibbana, let him not conceive Nibbana, let him not conceive [“I am”] in Nibbana, let him not conceive [“I am”] apart from Nibbana, let him not conceive Nibbana as 'mine,' let him not delight in Nibbana. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.
I'm afraid without the knowing of nibbana one can't enter the stream, and without the complete comprehension of nibbana one can't become an arahant. By the way, the Buddha didn't include nibbana in the four unconjecturables:
The Buddha-range of the Buddhas … The jhana-range of a person in jhana…. The (precise working out of the) results of kamma…. Conjecture about (the origin, etc., of) the world…"
-- Anguttara Nikaya IV.77 (Acintita Sutta)
3) "oh, and what you need to do is the 8 practices of the noble eightfold path".
-- Indeed, the first and most important step is: RIGHT VIEW about the 4NT including the 3rd NT -- nibbana.
We can (and are allowed to) have different views but we should never be absolutely sure only my view is correct and all the others' views are wrong/ worthless, especially when the others' view/point hasn't really been correctly grasped and when we are not yet (fully) enlightened. I always alert myself that these views I tend to hold as "mine" and as the truth (when I forget about defilements) might be actually caused by incoming defilements, and I'm not yet devoid of the defilements to be able to see the real truth without bias. I also alert myself that I probably haven't gotten a complete, unbiased comprehension of the Buddha's teachings concerning e.g. nibbana ...
But all the input and kind effort to help has genuinely been appreciated. Metta to all,
Starter