i've thought to write him about this, but i havent fully read his arguments.
its been my understanding that he doesnt wish for westerners to think nibbāna means annihilation.
but this could be done by carefully explaining that nibbāna is the cessation of existence, rather than non-existence.
i have suspected he holds eternalist views, but i would be glad to know if he did not.
he also seems to paint nibbāna as a mystery. buddha refused to answer the questions about his existence after death because it was an invalid question, not because of some indescribable permanent state. i got his book mind like fire unbound but i havent read it but i have used his monasterys free book list to send out and im grateful that his translations are widely available and still usually pretty good.
why not be true to the meaning of nibbāna however as such:
[how the heck is a flame unbound???]https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html wrote:What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, 'This fire is burning in front of me'?"
"...yes..."
"And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"
"...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'"
"If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?"
"...yes..."
"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"
"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' [(unbound)]."