"From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form"
Buddha is referring to consciousness soteriologically, not what the neurobiologist considers as consciousness. He is not even talking of consciousness as other Indian religions did.
To understand Buddha's teaching regarding consciousness one must first understand Paticca Samuppada. It appears you are familiar with it, even though it is really not a beginner's topic, but the question belongs in the beginner's forum, since a smart beginner should ask this.
Now for someone who is taking this consciousness to be independent and life-principle, it would mean the death of individual.
This is true. You wrote further
But, The Buddha has described consciousness, in many Suttas, as to be reckoned with the thing it depends on, i.e. eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body (touch)-consciousness and mind-consciousness.
Yes this is true, but buyer beware, in other suttas Buddha also said
underlying tendency is an essential condition,
for subject under discussion.
How should one understand this cessation of consciousness? Does that cessation mean that one will be devoid of any of such sensory consciousness?
Cessation does not mean loss of eyesight, hearing etc. Once the underlying tendencies are removed senses still work fine. But the things seen and heard do not lead to issue of kammic consciousness, or its maintenance. Arahant is very much conscious of all that goes on around him, more so than us, since he has no distractions.
What could of existing you may conceive devoid of consciousness?
It depends on what you mean by existence? If you mean existence to be "being" then the Arahant does not fall into that category.
The kind of existence that an Arahant features, is something I can only dream of, a life free of burden.
S/he has laid the down the burden of existence, meaning the burden of kammic consciousness.
This is a kind of question that every smart beginner should ask. Right answer however involves a pretty sophisticated understanding of what the Buddha taught.
Some Buddhist think of consciousness as the consciousness of other Indian religions. But it is not.
Once they get the beginning wrong, the rest tend to be misinterpreted.
Dearest Visigoth I am not sure whether you are a beginner. You don't appear to be, you already have some knowledge of Paticca samuppada.
But for a beginner your question is brilliant.
Regarding your quandary on Nama-and-Rupa, I cannot explain it in a short answer. However over time, I have dealt with it in my jhana thread. But i am not sure whether a beginner will get the hang of it. You are welcome to ask me questions on that thread, you don't come across as a beginner.
https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.p ... 59#p588559