Is there a contradiction between AN 9.34 and MN 152 on cessation of sensory experience?

In AN 9.34 (Nibbānasukhasutta) , the following exchange appears:- > There he addressed the mendicants: “Reverends, extinguishment is > bliss! Extinguishment is bliss!” > > When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend > Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since **nothing is felt?**” > > “The fact that **nothing is felt** is precisely what’s blissful about it. This seems to describe nibbāna, the highest attainment in Buddhism, in terms of the absence or cessation of all sensory perceptions. However, in MN 152 (Indriyabhāvanāsutta) , the Buddha is seen criticizing a teaching that appears to aim at suppressing sensory experience:- > "Then the student Uttara, a pupil of the brahmin Pārāsariya, > approached the Buddha, and exchanged greetings with him. When the > greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side. > The Buddha said to him, “Uttara, does Pārāsariya teach his disciples > the development of the faculties?” > > “He does, worthy Gotama.” > > “But how does he teach it?” > > “Worthy Gotama, it’s when the eye sees no sight and the ear hears no > sound." > > “In that case, Uttara, a blind person and a deaf person will have > developed faculties according to what Pārāsariya says. For a blind > person sees no sight with the eye and a deaf person hears no sound > with the ear.” . When he said this, Uttara sat silent, > dismayed, shoulders drooping, downcast, depressed, with nothing to > say. " On one occasion, the Buddha seems to disapprove of a practice aimed at eliminating sense activity, while on another, nibbāna itself is being described in terms that suggest the cessation of all sensory phenomena. Is this not a contradiction? How should these passages be understood together?