2.11 Of Cessation

Controverted Point: That there are two cessations of sorrow.

Theravādin: If you assert that there are two kinds of cessation, you must also assert this duality with respect to the cessation of Ill, the Truth about the cessation of Ill, the Truth about the nature of Ill, its cause, and the path leading to the cessation of Ill—to none of which you consent.

Further, you must assert that there are two shelters, two retreats, two refuges, two supports, two deathlessnesses, two ambrosias, two Nibbānas—which you deny. Or if you admit that there are, say, two Nibbānas, you must admit some specific difference, say, of high, low, base, sublime, superior, inferior—some boundary, division, line or cleavage in these two Nibbānas—which you deny.

Further, you admit, do you not, that things which have ceased without deep reflection, may also be made to cease by deep reflection? But this does not involve two (final) cessations.

Mahiṁsāsaka, Andhaka: Surely it does, if you admit, as do you not, that things which have ceased without, and those that have ceased by, deep reflection are both annihilated for ever?

Theravādin: You admit that the latter class of things ceases because the Ariyan eightfold Path has been attained? Then must you also admit that the former class of things ceases for the same reason—but you do not.

Again, the latter class (i.e., things which have ceased by deep reflection) does not, according to you, ever arise again. Then you must also admit this of the former class—but you do not … Hence cessation is really one, not two.