How can nibbana be achieved if it is causeless and unconditioned?

[Jasudho]

@Notez

The Deathless is something, a thing if you will, if there was no deathless then the end of dukkha wouldn’t be discerned.

This is a view, an assumption.

A number of others understand final nibbāna, “without death” to be cessation. There is no “village” or “refuge-thing”, however ineffable, previously existing, just as there is no dark before the light goes out.

There is just cessation, and utter absence is not some “thing” that can be arrived at.
Nor is it constructed. Nor is there any possibility of birth, death, etc.

As per a number of prior threads, “the deathless” and “the unborn”, when translated in this way, can easily lead the mind to reification.
Whereas, as KR Norman wrote, “without death” or “freedom from death” are accurate translations and less prone to make these into ineffable “some-things.”

What utterly ceases is just the aggregates/experience and dukkha when there is no rebirth.
Final cessation is not “filled up” with anything, and is not a destination or any thing at all in the understanding of final nibbāna as final extinguishment. Any way, that’s how a number of practitoners and teachers understand it.

Iti44: “This is called the element of extinguishment with nothing left over.”

[Notez]

@Jasudho

This is a view, an assumption.

I am not sure what you mean by this statement. How is anything i said a view?

Is there some mistake in the logic of my post?
Does any of what i said contradict the scripture?

Do you want sutta references for Deathless being a something to be attained?

@Jasudho

A number of others understand final nibbāna, “without death” to be cessation.

I am not sure what it is that you are trying to communicate here.

I also understand final nibbāna to be cessation, an end of dukkha.

This you will not argue with.

Now what is the end of dukkha?

There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of dukkha.

Now what needs to be for there to be an escape from dukkha?

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.

Now when i say that the made is something. This you agree with. But when i say that the unconstructed is also something, this you disagree with?

But did the Buddha not say that there are two elements the constructed and the unconstructed?

There are these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When once he knows and sees these two elements, in that way he is worthy to be called skilled in elements.

“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the conditioned. What three? An arising is seen, a vanishing is seen, and its alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the conditioned.

“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the unconditioned. What three? No arising is seen, no vanishing is seen, and no alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the unconditioned.”

When i say that the unconstructed is something and a thing in dependence on what the cessation of the constructed is discerned. Just this is exactly what i am talking about.

This is not some view that i hold, this is scripture.

I am not interpreting these texts.

@Jasudho

There is no “village” or “refuge-thing”, however ineffable, previously existing, just as there is no dark before the light goes out.

Are you saying that the village doesn’t exist before the man finds it, just like darkness doesn’t exist before light goes out?

I don’t think that you do, but you are mixing analogies that are not related to make some obscure point.

@Jasudho

There is just cessation, and utter absence is not some “thing” that can be arrived at.
Nor is it constructed. Nor is there any possibility of birth, death, etc.

In regards to this cessation that you speak of.

If i ask an atheist
What is after death? Is there perception & feeling?
He would answer ‘nothing happens, your perception & feelings just cease to exist’

What is the difference between this cessation and the one that you describe?

[Emptiness]

@Jasudho

So the conditional is used to finally end all conditions, so to speak.

Yes, to reveal the unconditioned! …… permanent, unborn, …… The deathless: MN 140: … the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die.

@Jasudho

I think we’re really on the same page here.

Nea …… oceans apart actually.

@Jasudho

I was addressing what appeared to be a conflation of the N8FP and “the pure nature of mind” in a prior post.

…… then you really have not understood the real meaning behind the usage of the words.

It’s a classic typical case where one is trapped in the text / words ……

[Notez]

If one was to question annihilstionists who do not reify the unmade it goes like this

Is there an unmade? Yes there is

Is unmade something? No it is not

So there isn’t an unmade? No there is an unmade

So there is an unmade but it’s not a thing? Yes there is an unmade but it’s not a thing.

Give an analogy

Fire ceases, the cessation of fire is just the absence of fire, cessation it’s not a thing like fire is a thing.

If you question further you can show flawed logic it in several ways;

Is the burning of fire discerned or not discerned?
It is discerned

Is the absence of fire discerned or not discerned?
It is discerned

So both are equal in that respect? Yes both are equal in that respect.

Then what you said first contradicts what you said last.

Another way to refute

You say that fire is a thing but it’s cessation is not a thing.

Now what is the fire, can you pin it down?
Is it the fuel? No
Is it the flame? No
Is it the heat? No
Is it the light? No

So there is no fire? There is a fire but you can’t pin it down.

Give an analogy

Just as with the assemblage of parts there is the word “chariot”. Just so with the assemblage of parts there is the word “fire”. What there exists is but a heap of constructs.

Then the fire doesn’t exist? It exists
Can you pin it down? I cannot
Then it exists but it’s not a thing? Yes

Then you have contradicted yourself saying that fire is a thing whereas it’s cessation isn’t.

[Jasudho]

@Emptiness

It’s a classic typical case where one is trapped in the text / words ……

So we’re not in agreement after all.
I’m not sure then what your point is.
You still seem to adhere to nibbana being a “something” which is fine. I offered examples from the suttas that point otherwise.

Whether one agrees or not, citing the suttas imo is not being

@Emptiness

trapped in the text / words ……

That’s often a convenient dismissal used when one does not interpret or understand the teachings in the suttas the same as others. But it’s not a convincing position in itself.

[Jasudho]

Hi,

Thanks for your comments.

The citations you cited can be interpreted in different ways. From what you wrote, I’m assuming you’re placing emphasis on words like “atthi”, “āyatana”, and “dhatu.”

Fair enough, but as in my prior posts, these words have a range of meanings and are context-dependent. So others like KR Norman, Venerables Sujato, Brahmali, and Sunyo and others translate “unborn” etc. as “without birth” in the sense that final cessation – not being anything at all – is free of all birth, death, etc.

So if there’s just nothing at all, there’s no “place” or “village” or anything to “arrive” at – like there’s no arriving at a universe that was never created in the first place or not arriving to a universe that has completely winked out and utterly ceased in every aspect.

But these are just examples – none of which can be pushed too far.

Nibbana -- A "dhamma", a "dhatu" -- or utter extinguishment?

Bhikkhu Bodhi, in his essay “Nibbana” (https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books16/Bhikkhu_Bodhi-Nibbana.pdf), wrote (bold typeface added): "Nibbana is an existing reality Regarding the nature of Nibbana, the question is often asked: Does Nibbana signify only extinction of the defilements and liberation from samsara or does it signify some reality existing in itself? Nibbana is not only the destruction of defilements and the end of samsara but a reality transcendent to the entire world of mundane expe…

"The Unborn", "The Deathless" ,"The Unconditioned": Translating epithets for nibbāna

In English translations, we often find epithets for nibbāna such as amata and ajāta translated as “the deathless” and “the unborn”, which may be read as an implicit reification of nibbāna. The most prominent example is perhaps Udāna 8.3: “Atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ. No cetaṃ, bhikkhave, abhavissa ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ, nayidha jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṃ paññāyetha. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, atthi ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ, tasmā jā…

There are varying views about this and people are free to decide.

[Notez]

Just a general note in regards to reification of words in general.

The whole idea of a fire being somehow more real than it’s cessation is fundamentally flawed because neither the ‘fire’ nor it’s ‘cessation’ can be pinned down as a truth & reality.

The whole argument hinges on identifying the word ‘fire’ as a thing but words are not things in that sense.

Burning exists in as far as perception & feeling exists. If one wasn’t percipient then one wouldn’t discern fire.

Absence of burning exists in as far as perception & feeling exists. If one wasn’t percipient then one wouldn’t discern the absence of burning.

So what one is talking about in as far as talking about a cessation of a fire is only the discerned changes in the constructed element.

[Notez]

I must censor myself but i’ll comment on the teachings found in those suttas in general.

First of all the exact translation doesn’t matter because it’s not difficult to learn the relevant pali.

As to context, obviously context is the foundation for communicating the information which was intended to be communicated, and the context is evident from the texts themselves and it’s not a subject to debate or interpretation.

I personally think that it is rather obvious that there are these two groups around

1. Annihilationists
2. Eternalists

The buddhist-annihilationist will say that parinibbana is just the end of perception & feeling. Exactly like atheist annihilationists do.

The buddhist-eternalist will essentially talk about parinibbana as a meditative attainment, like some super advanced meditative state that one enters into. Much like the outsiders talking about ‘mahasamadhi’.

Neither of these positions are difficult to understand. As a matter of fact most children can understand these two positions and it is all that most people can conceive of, either this or that.

Therefore behind all of the fluff, there are these two rather childish views for most people, and some are undecided as to which one they adhere to.

The dhamma is the crown jewel of intellectual pursuit, it is incredibly subtle & deep, it’s far more sophisticated than these silly positions.

There are many fine & beautiful things that are difficult to understand in the world and this dhamma is the most subtle & extreme thing that there is. It is simply mindblowing in light of this annihilation/eternalist dichotomy and is incomparably sophisticated.

[Green]

@Jasudho

Except in AN5.32 the N8FP is explicitly called conditional – the best of all conditioned things.

I say the same. I feel to read and understand the sutta’s one must be able to see what relates to conventional truth and ultimate truth,and also what relates to the mundane noble eightfold path and the supramundane Noble path. The last are called those teachings connected with emptiness, deep, transcendent. Buddha predicted that those will not be listened to.

The mundane noble eightfold path is conditional. It consists of right views like: there is rebirth, there is kamma and fruit of kamma, there is an after life, there are humans who have direct knowledge of this, etc. It consists also of right intentions, good will. It consist of right speech etc.

It is connected with merit. It is not connected to purity! It also does not lead out of the world. It is also still based upon avijja. This meritorious Path deals with bright kamma with bright results. It leads to a relative happiness in this life and after this life (higher rebirth). But these ripenings will also end.
This merit is still a bond. This Path is karmically loaded.

The supramundane Noble Path is different. It is not like that. It is connected with purity, grounded in purity, based upon purity, meaning, not even ego is involved. It is beyond bright kamma.

The supramundane Noble Path is not buddhist. It is not bound to any time, culture, religion, gender, place, specie. Buddha was not a buddhist. The Noble Path cannot be found in books. One must find it in mind, right?

It is not really difficult to understand the difference between what is connected to purity and what is not.
For example…if you give a monk some food with a mentallity of a businessman, expecting something in return, rebirth as deva, that is the mundane noble path, and just mundane giving activity. Mundane paths are the paths of the businessman. Always with an intent, with a goal, a reason, expecting something in return. It is like trading.

But perfectly pure giving is different. Also taught in the sutta’s. Pure giving, or giving that is connected to purity, based upon purity, is never business. It is a mere giving without expacting something in return. This giving is no investment and there is also no intent or goal or reason behind it.
It is not a strategic act.

Sometimes actions arise straight from the heart, from purity, not strategical, not loaded with even good intentions, not an investment. You just give. This the real goodhearteness, connected to purity, to emptiness (non-ego).

For me this is not theoretical. I immediately understood that such a calculated, strategical way of living, like a businessman, is, ofcourse, not pure and really noble. Ofcourse not. Such ethics are also not pure. But i also agree with the Buddha that impure is not the same as bad, evil, immoral.

I have struggled with this a long time. Because, at first, i saw this strategical behaviour as really evil, as immoral. As crimimal almost. Crafty, slick and sly. I think this is my inner child, my inner childs rejects the kind of wordly wisdom of the adult life.

I have cooled down a little bit. Buddha made me see that impure is not really the same as evil, and i think, like Buddha says in a sutta, that one can also make use of ego and all his/her desires in a positive way.

I also want to share that the world, the society, contacts, it will become really stressful, really problematic, hell-like when people always do something with an intent, goal, aiming at a certain result.
And even love, compassion, wisdom, friendliness is a strategy. Really imagine this world. This social climate is making everyone sick, no doubt about this. Dhamma will go under. It is just a huge mistake that one is really practicing Dhamma when one becomes more and more strategical, crafty, a trademan.

[Jasudho]

Hi,

@Notez

The buddhist-eternalist will essentially talk about parinibbana as a meditative attainment, like some super advanced meditative state that one enters into.

I don’t know how you came to this view, but folks who believe that final nibbana is a “timeless” something have never stated in my experience that this is a meditative attainment. They recognize final nibbana as the end of the khandhas, but believe there is “something” left over as a kind of timeless bliss beyond time and space – and beyond meditative attainments/states.

@Notez

The buddhist-annihilationist will say that parinibbana is just the end of perception & feeling. Exactly like atheist annihilationists do.

In the suttas annhilationists are those who hold to a mistaken view of any kind of self that they believe will cease with death.

True, the final cessation at death for those who incline to a cessation-understanding of final nibbāna is similar to death described by the materialists/annihilationists – with the important exception that the annihilationists and materialists ignore rebirth. Not a small matter, this!
And there is none for an arahant after death.

BTW, we’re free to express ourselves as we wish. However, statements that appear to impugn the understanding of those you’re in dialogue with, such as:

@Notez

As a matter of fact most children can understand these two positions and it is all that most people can conceive of,

and

@Notez

behind all of the fluff, there are these two rather childish views

and

@Notez

silly positions.

are judgmental and do not convey useful information that might help to clarify the issue.

[Notez]

Consider this.

If parinibbana is like the atheist’s idea of death.

Then the attainment of cessation of perception & feeling is like the unconsciousness due to fainting.

If there is no discernable truth & reality other than perception & feeling states then the cessation of perception & feeling can be no different to unconsciousness.

If it was true then it would be right to say that people lose consciousness in dependence on the unconstructed.

One won’t be able to delineate the difference between unconsciousness and the attainment of the cessation of perception & feeling having asserted that parinibbana is like the atheist’s idea of death.

[Jasudho]

Except those who have attained the temporary cessation of of perceptions, feelings, and consciousness, reflect and understand in the context of their Dhamma practice the significance of the cessation of all this – as Sariputta said in AN9.34: " …take a mendicant 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.

[Nikolas]

@Notez

Then the attainment of cessation of perception & feeling is like the unconsciousness due to fainting.

If there is no discernable truth & reality other than perception & feeling states then the cessation of perception & feeling can be no different to unconsciousness.

Unconsciousness, deep sleep, or coma are not devoid of consciousness; they lack memory and awareness. There are mental processes in a suppressed, weakened state. Entry into them occurs without any wisdom.

In contrast, the attainment of Nirodha Samapatti occurs through very acute awareness in Jhana. The mind on this path is extremely sharp and pure, without any suppression. This exceptionally sharp and conscious mind gradually refines and finally extinguishes through tranquility and the wisdom of renunciation. Because the mind is conscious, this cessation is not associated with the loss of awareness and memory but with the cessation of contact through the weakening of attachment to sense objects, by moving from coarser objects to subtler ones. Releasing the coarser and taking the subtler, finally releasing even the subtlest object through tranquility and insight. This release of the subtlest object is the special component that distinguishes Nirodha Samapatti as a transcendent state!

Nibbana is the cessation of contact, the release of acquisitions and objects, the cessation of attachment, the cessation of enchantment and enjoyment with objects and vedanas. Nibbana is fully realized in the process of achieving Nirodha Samapatti because to sever contact, one must destroy attachment to objects and restless passion.

When the mind arises again, it finds no objects and directly perceives the element in which there is no arising, changing, and ceasing—it sees the non-object, animitta. This is the moment of Phala Samapatti, the contemplation of the peace of cessation, Nibbana. It occurs immediately after Nirodha. This is another transcendent, unseen property of Nirodha Samapatti.

Finally, having reached Nirodha, the mind sees the peace and relief it experienced without being bound by the formations and agitation of phenomena. It sees that there is no enduring essence hidden behind the husk of formations. Thus, it deeply understands emptiness and anatta. This is another transcendent and unseen property of Nirodha Samapatti.

[Notez]

@Jasudho

do not convey useful information that might help to clarify the issue.

I said that those views are silly & childish because when i was a child i entertained such views.

When i was about 7 years old, my then 7 year old sister held the materialist annihilation view and we discussed it.

When i was 13 i learned about Buddhism and i figured that Buddha taught that parinibbana as some eternal bliss attained after death and i rejected it.

I don’t mean to offend anyone and i am actually surprised anyone would take offense.

@Jasudho

True, the final cessation at death for those who incline to a cessation-understanding of final nibbāna is similar to death described by the materialists/annihilationists – with the important exception that the annihilationists and materialists ignore rebirth. Not a small matter, this!
And there is none for an arahant after death.

It’s a moot point whether the difference is small or not. They don’t actually understand how rebirth comes about and wouldn’t be able to explain or defend it.

They just take it on faith without any grounding in logic.

This is one of the things that they will never try to explain because they don’t understand how to explain it. If they understood then they wouldn’t be siding with the materialists in their conceiving of cessation.

[Notez]

@Nikolas

Unconsciousness, deep sleep, or coma are not devoid of consciousness; they lack memory and awareness. There are mental processes in a suppressed, weakened state. Entry into them occurs without any wisdom.

Not devoid of consciousness but lacking awareness. What are you talking about?

@Nikolas

Because the mind is conscious, this cessation is not associated with the loss of awareness and memory but with the cessation of contact

I don’t understand this.

The mind is conscious without contact?

I don’t know what you are talking about nor what books you are getting these ideas from.

[Notez]

I don’t know whether you actually hold those views or not, but i think it is important that the general public is made aware that this kind of buddhism is actually being taught and that it is common.

I think that there is much criticism being directed at those who speak of the eternal citta but there is hardly anyone who talks about this materialism+rebirth kind of buddhism.

[Jasudho]

I’m wondering if you’ve read and considered the two threads I posted previously, and you also may wish to have a look at:

On the inherent pessimism of parinibbana as mere cessation

Cw: discussion of suicide A number of monastics and scholars hold that parinibbana consists merely of cessations of the five khandhas rather than a positive, existing reality or element obtained by arahants. While my knowledge of pali and the tipitika is far from sufficient to contest this interpretation on hermeneutic grounds, I would like to explore what I view as the extreme philosophical pessimism of such a position, a pessimism I feel these scholars are less than forthright in admitting. …

And

https://journal.equinoxpub.com/BSR/article/view/8891/10347

You may get a better understanding of the different viewpoints, even as you may continue to disagree.

[Notez]

@Jasudho

In the suttas annhilationists are those who hold to a mistaken view of any kind of self that they believe will cease with death.

Sort of yes

Sn22.81

Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or sankhara or consciousness as self. Nor do they have such a view: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ Still, they have such a view: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ But that annihilationist view is just a constructed phenomenon. ”

One can totally hold wrong views and it won’t help that they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or sankhara or consciousness as self.

The main issue is that they conceive of khandas as being in a world and being extinguished like a fire.

One shouldn’t think of parinibbana like this because it’s rather an extinguishment of a world and it is possible because there is something which is not a constituent of any world.

The fire analogy is not applicable to understanding parinibanna literally in that way because fire becoming extinguished is just a change in the constructed element, whereas the cessation of the constructed element occurs because of the unconstructed

@Jasudho

I’m wondering if you’ve read and considered the two threads I posted previously, and you also may wish to have a look at

I haven’t but i’ll take a look

[Notez]

@Jasudho

have a look at

I read the op and i probably won’t read the whole thread, it is what it is.

The problem with the materialist cessation view is not that it’s dark but that it is impossible.

If the khandas of the various beings were like fires dependently arising, existing & ceasing, in a single world, then such cessation would be possible but this is just not so.

When material things like a fire cease in the world, the world merely changes, this doesn’t violate any logical principles like conservation of energy, in other words we don’t make something into nothing, we just change what is.

When we talk a fires cessation, the heat dissipates and etc, nothing is destroyed.

However if we assert that khandas are in the world and that they are extinguished. Unlike a fire where heat dissipates and energy is conserved, the khandas are just deleted out of existence, we have essentially annihilated something, effectively turning something into nothing.

Essentially if consciousness is asserted to be a constituent of the world then we have to conserve it like we do with energy.

Therefore one can’t just delete consciousness from the world making it into nothing.

The logic of the proposition is just demonstrably erroneous.

We have to think way differently for things to make sense.

First of all we have to use the sutta definitions for what is a world, not the ideas of materialists, and then proceed to extinguish it by exhausting causes & conditions for it’s conception & perception which is possible because an unmade can be discerned as a cessation of the made.

[Jasudho]

@Notez

I read the op and i probably won’t read the whole thread,

That’s up to you, but you’re missing a lot of important information including from several Venerables.
The info is worth reading and considerin, but that’s your call.

@Notez

First of all we have to use the sutta definitions for what is a world

Fine. Agree.
But you appear to be conflating the Buddha’s teachings about the world with whatever an “outside” world may be. The Buddha didn’t deny a world or reality with earthquakes and other conditions, but
in the suttas you’re referring to he focussed on the six senses and the I, me, mine delusion. This can indeed cease completely.

AN4.23: "The cessation of the world has been understood by the Realized One; and he has realized the cessation of the world. The practice that leads to the cessation of the world has been understood by the Realized One; and he has developed the practice that leads to the cessation of the world."

Nothing here about the conservation of energy because the extinguishing of greed, anger, and ignorance is the ending of rebirth, the cessation of the world of the aggregates/ senses, and the ending of dukkha.
This has nothing directly to do with any outside “reality” or world of energy conservation but of the world of experience via the six senses/aggregates.

Similarly in SN12.44: “And what is the ending of the world? Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. Feeling is a condition for craving. When that craving fades away and ceases with nothing left over, grasping ceases. When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. … That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases. This is the ending of the world.”

And SN35.107: “When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases. When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease. That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases. This is the ending of the world. …”

@Notez

When material things like a fire cease in the world, the world merely changes, this doesn’t violate any logical principles like conservation of energy, in other words we don’t make something into nothing, we just change what is.

So rather than being about the conservation of energy, or philosophizing about how something turns to nothing, or conflating the world of physics and weather, the Buddha taught about the world in these suttas as the locus of dukkha and the ending of dukkha.

@Notez

the khandas are just deleted out of existence, we have essentially annihilated something, effectively turning something into nothing.

See above.

Also AN10.95:
" “Uttiya, I teach my disciples from my own insight in order to purify sentient beings, to get past sorrow and crying, to make an end of pain and sadness, to end the cycle of suffering, and to realize extinguishment.”

“But when Master Gotama teaches in this way, is the whole world saved, or half, or a third?” But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent.

“Then Ānanda said to the wanderer Uttiya, …In the same way, it’s not the Realized One’s concern whether the whole world is saved by this, or half, or a third. But the Realized One knows that whoever is saved from the world—whether in the past, the future, or the present—all have given up the five hindrances, corruptions of the heart that weaken wisdom.”

No conservation of energy, etc. Just the ending of defilements as the “outside” world rolls on…

@Notez

an unmade can be discerned as a cessation of the made.

This may apply while an arahant is alive but not for final cessation after death and the ceasing of the khandhas. Or are you arguing that the senses and khandhas still exist after the death of an arahant?

If not, then out they went, like a flame going out, (the flame is only a metaphor in the suttas, of cessation).