user11009: Furthermore, take a good person who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.”
https://suttacentral.net/mn113/en/sujato

user8157: Nibbana
And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.

user254: I don't think the sutta is saying that.
The sutta starts with "What is a good person?", and then, "Is it someone from a good family, an eminent family, a wealthy family? Is a "good" person a famous person?", etc.
And then it gives what I think is standard doctrine, i.e. that it's not because of family's status (e.g. wealth or caste), some "external" factor like that, that a monk is "good" or "better" -- instead it's for what I'd try to call an "internal" reason i.e. it's when "thoughts of greed, hate, or delusion come to an end".
And I think that's it -- that's pretty well the whole sutta. So if you're a monk, don't go thinking you're better than another monk because you came from a wealthy family.
And in fact you shouldn't "identify" like that at all. In English I'd assume that "identifying with" (as that word is used e.g. here) is part of an anatta doctrine, i.e. "Don't start thinking 'I am good because so-and-so is my family' etc." -- and, in Buddhism, also a doctrine about conceit.
Incidentally the word translated as "identifying" is tammaya

absorbed in that; identifying with that; desiring that

So maybe "don't be absorbed with that" or even "don't desire that" could be a translation. I guess I understand from the context, though, why "identifying" makes sense as a translation (or part of the translation) in this context.
To get around to answering your question I guess that nibbana is not only not "identifying" (see also sabbe dhamma anatta as a description of nibbana), perhaps also even not being "absorbed" in (e.g. because it's to do with being "unbound" or "liberated" perhaps).
Also I'm not sure whether "cessation" is an accurate or complete translation in the phrase "cessation of perception and feeling" -- you might want to study how nirodha appears, is used, in the doctrine. The dictionary says " many cases is synonymous with nibbāna", in which case "the nibbana of feeling and cessation" might be a better translation. In which case you'd be asking, "is nibbana the nibbana of feeling and cessation" in which case the answer might more obviously be "yes", whereas the word "cessation" might be misunderstood in this context.
Finally I noticed that at the end of the sutta the word "identify" appears again:

This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.
Ayaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu na kiñci maññati, na kuhiñci maññati, na kenaci
   maññatī”ti.

This time, though, "identify" is a translation of maññati
 ...


to think, to be of opinion, to imagine, to deem ...
to know, to be convinced, to be sure ...
to imagine, to be proud (of) to be conceited, to boast ...


... instead of atammayatā.

I think that, as explained in Murathan1's answer, nibbana itself doesn't "arise and cease", and that anything conditioned (which does arise and cease, including feelings and perceptions) isn't nibbana.
Even so I don't think that means that attaining nibbana is about being unconscious -- I think that feelings and perceptions continue (to arise and cease), but the arhat doesn't "identify" with them, isn't "absorbed" in them, doesn't "desire" them.

user43: What Buddha's saying is that, through not taking base in any concept, abandoning all generalizations, letting go of all reference points, ceasing all reification -- all associative perception comes to a halt and with it all emotional reactions come to a stop, too.
Indeed, as perception is semiosis, it requires grasping at signs. When grasping at signs is abandoned, semiosis cannot continue. Since semiosis cannot continue, emotional reactions have no basis to arise on.
This sterile state is characterized by the complete absence of dukkha, the only (serious!) problem with it is that it's conditioned, impermanent, and limited.
However, attaining this state allows meditator to get the first-hand insight into the fact that our dukkha is mind-made and comes from comparison. Having seen that directly, one is emancipated from it, the illusion loses its power. This emancipation is the true Liberation by Wisdom, the non-abiding Nirvana.
The same state can be attained in Zen and Vajrayana artificially, for example by startling the student in the middle of a meditation session. When you are in this state, you are lucid and yet your mind is blank. When a normal mind begins to function again, as your first impression you can't help but notice the silliness (emptiness) of it all.

11009: <p>Furthermore, take a good person who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.”</p>

<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn113/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://suttacentral.net/mn113/en/sujato</a></p>
 8157: <p>Nibbana</p>

<p>And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.</p>
 254: <p>I don't think the sutta is saying that.</p>

<p>The sutta starts with "What is a good person?", and then, "Is it someone from a good family, an eminent family, a wealthy family? Is a "good" person a famous person?", etc.</p>

<p>And then it gives what I think is standard doctrine, i.e. that it's not because of family's status (e.g. wealth or caste), some "external" factor like that, that a monk is "good" or "better" -- instead it's for what I'd try to call an "internal" reason i.e. it's when "thoughts of greed, hate, or delusion come to an end".</p>

<p>And I think that's it -- that's pretty well the whole sutta. So if you're a monk, don't go thinking you're better than another monk because you came from a wealthy family.</p>

<p>And in fact you shouldn't "identify" like that at all. In English I'd assume that "identifying with" (as that word is used e.g. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(social_science)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>) is part of an <em>anatta</em> doctrine, i.e. "Don't start thinking 'I am good because so-and-so is my family' etc." -- and, in Buddhism, also a doctrine about conceit.</p>

<p>Incidentally the word translated as "identifying" is <a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/tammaya" rel="nofollow noreferrer">tammaya</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>absorbed in that; identifying with that; desiring that</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So maybe "don't be absorbed with that" or even "don't desire that" could be a translation. I guess I understand from the context, though, why "identifying" makes sense as a translation (or part of the translation) in this context.</p>

<p>To get around to answering your question I guess that nibbana is not only not "identifying" (see also <em>sabbe dhamma anatta</em> as a description of nibbana), perhaps also even not being "absorbed" in (e.g. because it's to do with being "unbound" or "liberated" perhaps).</p>

<p>Also I'm not sure whether "cessation" is an accurate or complete translation in the phrase "cessation of perception and feeling" -- you might want to study how <a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/nirodha" rel="nofollow noreferrer">nirodha</a> appears, is used, in the doctrine. The dictionary says " many cases is synonymous with nibbāna", in which case "the nibbana of feeling and cessation" might be a better translation. In which case you'd be asking, "is nibbana the nibbana of feeling and cessation" in which case the answer might more obviously be "yes", whereas the word "cessation" might be misunderstood in this context.</p>

<p>Finally I noticed that at the end of the sutta the word "identify" appears again:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.<br>
  <em>Ayaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu na kiñci maññati, na kuhiñci maññati, na kenaci
   maññatī”ti.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>This time, though, "identify" is a translation of <a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/ma%C3%B1%C3%B1ati" rel="nofollow noreferrer">maññati
</a> ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol>
  <li>to think, to be of opinion, to imagine, to deem ...</li>
  <li>to know, to be convinced, to be sure ...</li>
  <li>to imagine, to be proud (of) to be conceited, to boast ...</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>... instead of <em>atammayatā</em>.</p>

<hr>

<p>I think that, as explained in Murathan1's answer, nibbana itself doesn't "arise and cease", and that anything conditioned (which does arise and cease, including feelings and perceptions) isn't nibbana.</p>

<p>Even so I don't think that means that attaining nibbana is about being unconscious -- I think that feelings and perceptions continue (to arise and cease), but the arhat doesn't "identify" with them, isn't "absorbed" in them, doesn't "desire" them.</p>
 43: <p>What Buddha's saying is that, through not taking base in any concept, abandoning all generalizations, letting go of all reference points, ceasing all reification -- all associative perception comes to a halt and with it all emotional reactions come to a stop, too.</p>
<p>Indeed, as perception is semiosis, it requires grasping at signs. When grasping at signs is abandoned, semiosis cannot continue. Since semiosis cannot continue, emotional reactions have no basis to arise on.</p>
<p>This sterile state is characterized by the complete absence of dukkha, the only (serious!) problem with it is that it's conditioned, impermanent, and limited.</p>
<p>However, attaining this state allows meditator to get the first-hand insight into the fact that our dukkha is mind-made and comes from comparison. Having seen that directly, one is emancipated from it, the illusion loses its power. This emancipation is the true Liberation by Wisdom, the non-abiding Nirvana.</p>
<p>The same state can be attained in Zen and Vajrayana artificially, for example by startling the student in the middle of a meditation session. When you are in this state, you are lucid and yet your mind is blank. When a normal mind begins to function again, as your first impression you can't help but notice the silliness (emptiness) of it all.</p>
