What does this research mean for the field?

Cessation (nirodha) is redefined as the termination of upādāna-binding rules rather than the annihilation of a system or elimination of experience. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.NOVEL_FINDING. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.CHALLENGES_CONSENSUS.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To clarify the concept of cessation as a non-destructive process within a closed structure while avoiding common misinterpretations.

March 7, 2026Open Access

Part 3. Conditions for Structural Cessation

Key Points

To clarify the concept of cessation as a non-destructive process within a closed structure while avoiding common misinterpretations.
Adopts a dual hermeneutics approach to interpret Paṭiccasam-uppāda as a conditional judgment algorithm.
Utilizes set-theoretic and algorithmic-logical notation to reduce ambiguity.
Treats misreading pathways as a threat model with embedded countermeasures.
Redefines cessation as the termination of binding rules instead of complete annihilation.
Develops a control-theoretic model integrating a binding function, observation operator, and controller.
Introduces gate-like judgment predicates that evaluate internal failure patterns over observation windows.

Abstract

This document presents a structural specification of cessation (nirodha) as a meaning-ful judgment inside a self-referential closed structure (an interpretively closed system, Ω), while blocking persistent misreadings that reduce nibbāna to a phenomenal "state" or equate "termination" with destruction, nihilism, self-harm, or a kill switch. The work does nseek a mathematical formal proof, nor does it provide a procedural manual for practice. Instead, it specifies the minimum logical conditions under which a binding circuit can be released in a way that is both non-coercive and resistant to misinterpretation. Methodologically, the document adopts a dual hermeneutics that reads Paṭiccasam-uppāda as a conditional judgment algorithm rather than an ontological genesis narrative, and re-describes it using concepts from system dynamics, topology, and control theory. Set-theoretic and algorithmic-logical notation is employed as a qualitative modeling grammar: symbols serve to reduce linguistic ambiguity and to prevent type violations (e.g., confusing rules with data, or judgment with measurement). Misreading pathways are treated as a threat model, with explicit countermeasures (locking statements and domain restrictions) embedded in the structure of the specification. The main contributions are: (1) a redefinition of cessation as the termination of upādāna-binding rules—i.e., releasing attribution links and opening a closed loop—rather than annihilating a system or eliminating experience; (2) a control-theoretic model with a binding function B, an observation operator Obs, and a supervisory controller R (sammādiṭṭhi) that acts at the rule level via Permit/Cut constraints; (3) gate-like judgment predicates that formalize the three characteristics as internal failure patterns evaluated over observation windows, including an auxiliary ratio SR(t)=ΔE/(k·ΔI) that supports the rule-level trigger of nibbidā (investment stop); and (4) an ethical safety layer that re-describes cattāro appamaññā as non-harm, non-intervention, and anti-domination design constraints. In sum, the document distinguishes termination from crash and draws a strict bound-ary between specification/judgment (compile time) and execution/silence (runtime), closing deliberately so that the specification itself does nbecome a new object of clinging.

Bookmark

View Full Paper