The sanskrit word nirvana refers to the destruction or cessation of desire. It means one has to empty thyself from desires. By eliminating desires one is also eliminating afflictions, actions, rebirths, and suffering that are consequences of afflictions and actions.
Answer: One significant distinction among Kush and Egypt is their areas. Kush was a domain toward the south of Egypt and was worked at the base of the mountains. They had a consistent measure of precipitation. This precipitation combined with the spillover from the mountains implied that they quite often had fruitful soil. This was an alternate story for Egypt. Egypt relied upon the yearly flooding of the Nile River so as to have great soil to plant and develop food required for endurance. This flooding was indispensable to their progress. Another contrast among Kush and Egypt is that sovereigns governed Kush, not at all like the male lords and pharaohs that controlled Egypt. They additionally fabricated burial chambers like the Egyptians did however the Kush by and large constructed burial chambers with level rooftops on them. Kush likewise had regular assets, for example, gold, ivory, and iron metal. Preservation is likewise a region where they had a few contrasts. The cycle of embalmment in Egypt was frequently held for those with abundance on the grounds that the cycle was costly and the average citizens couldn't manage the cost of it. Kush aristocrats likewise embalmed their dead however the ordinary citizens preserved their dead also.
Explanation:
Answer:
The main point here on the appeal would be the fact that the Sherrods decided to stay silent on the last offer made by the Kidds to settle the situation, and rather decided to go ahead and look for a mandatory arbitration. When the Sherrods did that, the Kidds might have understood that they were not accepting their offer for 34.000 dollars and preffered to settle for the result of the mandatory arbitration, which established the price at 25.000 dollars.
Another point is that there was a big time lapse between the last offer made by the Kidds to settle with the Sherrods and their communicating that they would go for that final settlement offer, especially after the mandatory arbitration had already established a new price. This time lapse should also be taken in favor of the Kidds in their appeal
Finally, the matter should have ended when the final decision for the arbitration was given
So it should be expected that on appeal the decision reached in the mandatory arbritration be upheld, instead of the new sum which was initially assumed not accepted by the Sherrods when they went through with the arbitration.
