Annihilationism and nuances with 'I' and 'it'

The Watercooler
1

how are the below sentences parsed so that some mean “I” and the others means “it”?

‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’
‘no cassaṁ no ca me siyā nābhavissaṁ na me bhavissatī’ti;
SN22.81

“‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine.’
“‘no cassaṁ, no ca me siyā, nābhavissa, na me bhavissatī’ti
SN22.55

This is the best of the convictions of outsiders, that is: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’
Etadaggaṁ, bhikkhave, bāhirakānaṁ diṭṭhigatānaṁ yadidaṁ ‘no cassaṁ, no ca me siyā, na bhavissāmi, na me bhavissatī’ti.
AN10.29

‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine. I am giving up what exists, what has come to be.’
‘no cassa, no ca me siyā; na bhavissati, na me bhavissati; yadatthi yaṁ, bhūtaṁ—taṁ pajahāmī’ti.
MN106

‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine’?”
‘no cassaṁ, no ca me siyā, nābhavissa, na me bhavissatī’”ti?
SN22.153

‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine’?”
‘no cassaṁ, no ca me siyā, nābhavissa, na me bhavissatī’”ti?
SN24.4

‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine. I am giving up what exists, what has come to be.’ They gain equanimity.
‘no cassa no ca me siyā, na bhavissati na me bhavissati, yadatthi yaṁ bhūtaṁ taṁ pajahāmī’ti upekkhaṁ paṭilabhati.
AN7.55

1 Like
2

Although not in sutta, it is described in the Dà zhìdù lùn (Chinese: 大智度論, Sanskrit: Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa) as follows:

雖六十二種皆是邪見，無作最重。所以者何？無作言不應作功德、求涅槃。若言天作、若言世界始來，雖是邪見，而不遮作福德。

Although these sixty-two are all wrong views, amoralism is the most serious. For what reason? Amoralism claim that one should not make merit or seek nirvana. Such views as (I’m not sure what is being referred to here, probably divine command theory and fatalism), although wrong views, do not hinder merit-making.

“Amoralism” here refers to the teachings of Purana Kassapa.

3

Here is Bhikkhu Bodhi’s comment on SN22.55:

4 Likes
4

thank you! very helpful!!

5

I think this is about the view of anatta ‘not-self’, not the annihilationist view. Cf. also its Chinese version, SA 64:
Page 57 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (75.2 KB)

6

Regarding sutta references for annihilationism as a wrong view (i.e. not ‘right view’), see SN 12.15 = SA 301:
Pages 192-5 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (274.5 KB)

7

I believe the annihililationist view on life does not make people really dispassionate, but probably indifferent. They only develop an attitude like: “I do not care, because I will no be there, It is not my future, so not my concern”.

I feel this attitude is very different from real dispassion because that is always caring, sensitive.

I personally believe that this indifference is a great evil. It tends to tote anything and anyone in a downwards path. Dhamma destroys indifference is my experience.

8

I know of sutta’s saying Annihilationism is the worst of the extreme views, but not the other way around.

9

Could you give an example?

11

The doctrine of annihilationism is given in DN 2 by the famous Charvakan (the ancient school of Indian materialism) named Ajita:

‘Great king, there is no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There’s no such thing as mother and father, or beings that are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is rightly comported and rightly practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.

This person is made up of the four primary elements. When they die, the earth in their body merges and coalesces with the substance of earth. The water in their body merges and coalesces with the substance of water. The fire in their body merges and coalesces with the substance of fire. The air in their body merges and coalesces with the substance of air. The faculties are transferred to space.

Four men with a bier carry away the corpse."

The Buddha chastises this specific view of this specific teacher over and over and over and over in numerous suttas.

In MN 117, the Buddha specifically identifies this doctrine as the wrong view in contraposition to right view:

‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There’s no such thing as mother and father, or beings that are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is rightly comported and rightly practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’

Notice it is a word for word recount of Ajita’s doctrine and view. In MN 117 this is identified as the wrong view. In direct contraposition to this the Buddha describes right view which is divided into two:

Right view is twofold, I say. There is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment. And there is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.

And what is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment?

‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are such things as mother and father, and beings that are reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are rightly comported and rightly practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’

This is described over and over again as right view in numerous suttas.

The Buddha took this one specific teacher and his materialist teaching as the definition of wrong view again and again. He even used it contraposition to describe right view (with taints). I don’t believe you’ll find any view of any other teacher so vilified by the Buddha.

Not sure what you’re asking, but I can say for myself as a Westerner that I went from not believing in rebirth and thinking it a total superstition at odds with my scientific understanding of the world to a Buddhist who believes in the doctrine of rebirth and in a way that I think is in accordance with both my scientific understanding and my understanding of not-self.

Hope this is helpful. :pray:

1 Like
12

See also the parallell MA 6:

The Buddha said, “What are the seven? A monk’s practice ought to be thus: ‘I have no self, and nothing is mine. In the future, there’ll be no self, and nothing will be mine.’ He then ends what has been, and he attains equanimity after ending it.

Here we see the Chinese translators interpretation of the ‘it’ form. Maybe @cdpatton could correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that the there’s no real way to capture the Pali difference between ‘it’ and ‘I’ with the Chinese characters because the grammar is too different.

What did the Chinese translators use for “I might not be” though?

This might be a useful extra data point :slight_smile:

2 Likes
13

ooh, and @yeshe.tenley I found a super explicit one AN3.137!

So…

AN10.29 says;

This is the best of the convictions of outsiders, that is: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’
Etadaggaṁ, bhikkhave, bāhirakānaṁ diṭṭhigatānaṁ yadidaṁ ‘no cassaṁ, no ca me siyā, na bhavissāmi, na me bhavissatī’ti.

and SN22.81 says;

Still, they have such a view:
Api ca kho evaṁdiṭṭhi hoti:
‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’
‘no cassaṁ no ca me siyā nābhavissaṁ na me bhavissatī’ti.
But that annihilationist view is just a conditioned phenomenon.
Yā kho pana sā, bhikkhave, ucchedadiṭṭhi saṅkhāro so.

but AN3.137 says ;

“Mendicants, a hair blanket is said to be the worst kind of woven cloth.
“Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, yāni kānici tantāvutānaṁ vatthānaṁ, kesakambalo tesaṁ paṭikiṭṭho akkhāyati.
It’s cold in the cold, hot in the heat, ugly, smelly, and unpleasant to touch.
Kesakambalo, bhikkhave, sīte sīto, uṇhe uṇho, dubbaṇṇo, duggandho, dukkhasamphasso.
In the same way, the teaching of the bamboo-staffed ascetic is said to be the worst of all the doctrines of the various ascetics and brahmins.
Evamevaṁ kho, bhikkhave, yāni kānici puthusamaṇabrāhmaṇavādānaṁ makkhalivādo tesaṁ paṭikiṭṭho akkhāyati.

The bamboo-staffed ascetic, that silly man, has this doctrine and view:
Makkhali, bhikkhave, moghapuriso evaṁvādī evaṁdiṭṭhi:
‘There is no power in deeds, action, or energy.’
‘natthi kammaṁ, natthi kiriyaṁ, natthi vīriyan’ti.

Now, all the perfected ones, the fully awakened Buddhas who lived in the past taught the efficacy of deeds, action, and energy.
Yepi te, bhikkhave, ahesuṁ atītamaddhānaṁ arahanto sammāsambuddhā, tepi bhagavanto kammavādā ceva ahesuṁ kiriyavādā ca vīriyavādā ca.
But the bamboo-staffed ascetic opposes them by saying:
Tepi, bhikkhave, makkhali moghapuriso paṭibāhati:
‘There is no power in deeds, action, or energy.’
‘natthi kammaṁ, natthi kiriyaṁ, natthi vīriyan’ti.

and DN2 says

One time, sir, I approached Ajita of the hair blanket and exchanged greetings with him.
Ekamidāhaṁ, bhante, samayaṁ yena ajito kesakambalo tenupasaṅkamiṁ; upasaṅkamitvā ajitena kesakambalena saddhiṁ sammodiṁ.
When the greetings and polite conversation were over, I sat down to one side, and asked him the same question.
Sammodanīyaṁ kathaṁ sāraṇīyaṁ vītisāretvā ekamantaṁ nisīdiṁ. Ekamantaṁ nisinno kho ahaṁ, bhante, ajitaṁ kesakambalaṁ etadavocaṁ:
‘yathā nu kho imāni, bho ajita, puthusippāyatanāni …pe…
sakkā nu kho, bho ajita, evameva diṭṭheva dhamme sandiṭṭhikaṁ sāmaññaphalaṁ paññapetun’ti?

He said:
Evaṁ vutte, bhante, ajito kesakambalo maṁ etadavoca:
‘Great king, there is no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There’s no such thing as mother and father, or beings that are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is rightly comported and rightly practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.
‘natthi, mahārāja, dinnaṁ, natthi yiṭṭhaṁ, natthi hutaṁ, natthi sukatadukkaṭānaṁ kammānaṁ phalaṁ vipāko, natthi ayaṁ loko, natthi paro loko, natthi mātā, natthi pitā, natthi sattā opapātikā, natthi loke samaṇabrāhmaṇā sammaggatā sammāpaṭipannā, ye imañca lokaṁ parañca lokaṁ sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedenti.
This person is made up of the four primary elements. When they die, the earth in their body merges and coalesces with the substance of earth. The water in their body merges and coalesces with the substance of water. The fire in their body merges and coalesces with the substance of fire. The air in their body merges and coalesces with the substance of air. The faculties are transferred to space.
Cātumahābhūtiko ayaṁ puriso, yadā kālaṁ karoti, pathavī pathavikāyaṁ anupeti anupagacchati, āpo āpokāyaṁ anupeti anupagacchati, tejo tejokāyaṁ anupeti anupagacchati, vāyo vāyokāyaṁ anupeti anupagacchati, ākāsaṁ indriyāni saṅkamanti.
Four men with a bier carry away the corpse.
Āsandipañcamā purisā mataṁ ādāya gacchanti.
Their footprints show the way to the cemetery.
Yāvāḷāhanā padāni paññāyanti.
The bones become bleached. Offerings dedicated to the gods end in ashes.
Kāpotakāni aṭṭhīni bhavanti, bhassantā āhutiyo.
Giving is a doctrine of morons.
Dattupaññattaṁ yadidaṁ dānaṁ.
When anyone affirms a positive teaching it’s just hollow, false nonsense.
Tesaṁ tucchaṁ musā vilāpo ye keci atthikavādaṁ vadanti.
Both the foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and don’t exist after death.’
Bāle ca paṇḍite ca kāyassa bhedā ucchijjanti vinassanti, na honti paraṁ maraṇā’ti.

And so, when I asked Ajita of the hair blanket about the fruits of the ascetic life apparent in the present life, he answered with the doctrine of annihilationism.
Itthaṁ kho me, bhante, ajito kesakambalo sandiṭṭhikaṁ sāmaññaphalaṁ puṭṭho samāno ucchedaṁ byākāsi.

So there is an inconsistency here one way or another, either ajita is the worst, or he is the best, or the “i might not be…” is not annihilationist, or ajita is not annihilationist. I would be interested to hear @Sunyo 's thoughts on this issue.

Looking at the parallel to SN22.81 SA57 I don’t think the annihilationist view is mentioned, but I am relying on google translate so maybe @cdpatton can clarify?

and just for the sake of completeness about the only other “annihilationist” info we have from the early canon is;

“Suppose that the person who does the deed experiences the result. Then for one who has existed since the beginning, suffering is made by oneself. This statement leans toward eternalism.
“‘So karoti so paṭisaṁvedayatī’ti kho, kassapa, ādito sato ‘sayaṅkataṁ dukkhan’ti iti vadaṁ sassataṁ etaṁ pareti.
Suppose that one person does the deed and another experiences the result. Then for one stricken by feeling, suffering is made by another. This statement leans toward annihilationism.
‘Añño karoti añño paṭisaṁvedayatī’ti kho, kassapa, vedanābhitunnassa sato ‘paraṅkataṁ dukkhan’ti iti vadaṁ ucchedaṁ etaṁ pareti.
Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way:
Ete te, kassapa, ubho ante anupagamma majjhena tathāgato dhammaṁ deseti:
‘Ignorance is a condition for choices.
‘avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā;

SN12.17

2 Likes
14

Hiya,

Unless I’m mistaken, the doctrine of AN3.137 that “‘there is no power in deeds, action, or energy” is not that of Ajita Kesakambala but that of Purana Kassapa, which you’ll also find in DN2. It’s called the akirya doctrine, and it’s not the same as Ajita’s. Ajita’s results of karma I take to refer specifically to results after this life, which would align with his materialistic doctrine. Purana Kassapa rejects all morality altogether, saying “the one who acts does nothing wrong when they punish, mutilate, torture”. This Ajita doesn’t do.

Either way, a doctrine could be the best in one way and the worst in others. It could be good because it leads away from desire for existence, it could be bad because it leads to immoral action.

2 Likes
15

Thanks for your reply @Sunyo ! But I think you are in fact mistaken, Purana Kassapa makes no mention of kamma at all, however;

The bamboo-staffed ascetic, that silly man, has this doctrine and view:
Makkhali, bhikkhave, moghapuriso evaṁvādī evaṁdiṭṭhi:
‘There is no power in deeds, action, or energy.’
‘natthi kammaṁ, natthi kiriyaṁ, natthi vīriyan’ti.
AN3.137

One time, sir, I approached Ajita of the hair blanket and exchanged greetings with him.
Ekamidāhaṁ, bhante, samayaṁ yena ajito kesakambalo tenupasaṅkamiṁ; upasaṅkamitvā ajitena kesakambalena saddhiṁ sammodiṁ…

He said:
Evaṁ vutte, bhante, ajito kesakambalo maṁ etadavoca:
‘Great king, there is no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There’s no such thing as mother and father, or beings that are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is rightly comported and rightly practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.
‘natthi, mahārāja, dinnaṁ, natthi yiṭṭhaṁ, natthi hutaṁ, natthi sukatadukkaṭānaṁ kammānaṁ phalaṁ vipāko, natthi ayaṁ loko, natthi paro loko, natthi mātā, natthi pitā, natthi sattā opapātikā, natthi loke samaṇabrāhmaṇā sammaggatā sammāpaṭipannā, ye imañca lokaṁ parañca lokaṁ sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedenti.
DN2

So that looks like the correct identification has been made.

16

There could also just have been several different views grouped under same term because they share some essential similarities (but they could vary substantially in the details), just how we use language today :slight_smile:

17

Looking at the sutta again it refers to two different teachers: the one who goes by ‘hair-blanket’ and Makkhali Gosala who is mentioned in DN 2 as the person who put forward the actual view that is described in this sutta as the worst:

One time, sir, I approached the bamboo-staffed ascetic Gosāla and exchanged greetings with him.
Ekamidāhaṁ, bhante, samayaṁ yena makkhali gosālo tenupasaṅkamiṁ; upasaṅkamitvā makkhalinā gosālena saddhiṁ sammodiṁ.
…
One does not act of one’s own volition, one does not act of another’s volition, one does not act from a person’s volition. There is no power, no energy, no human strength or vigor.

Natthi attakāre, natthi parakāre, natthi purisakāre, natthi balaṁ, natthi vīriyaṁ, natthi purisathāmo, natthi purisaparakkamo. DN 2

Compare that to AN 3.137

The bamboo-staffed ascetic, that silly man, has this doctrine and view:
Makkhali, bhikkhave, moghapuriso evaṁvādī evaṁdiṭṭhi:
‘There is no power in deeds, action, or energy.’
‘natthi kammaṁ, natthi kiriyaṁ, natthi vīriyan’ti. AN 3.137

A couple possibilities:

  • Perhaps there was a close relationship between Ajita of the Hair Blanket and this Makkhali Gosālo. It is said that the former was definitely representing the materialist school while the latter represented the fatalist school.

  • It could be that the ancient India materialist school and fatalist school were inextricably thought as the same school. In this case, perhaps Makkhali Gosālo was a student of the materialist school which was formed from the “hair blanket.”

  • Maybe this sutta over the ages has been corrupted or confused the two teachers and their views?

  • Maybe the Buddha deliberately was trying to show an association between the two wrong views?

I don’t really know, but it is interesting and I think there is some ambiguity here.

:pray:

1 Like
18

ooh, I hadn’t picked that up, thanks!

2 Likes
19

Oops! Sorry, I was confused by Ven Sujato translating the name Makkhali (as ‘bamboo-sticked ascetic’). There’s nothing wrong with that, but it made me miss that it’s the view of Makkhali Gosāla, not Purana Kassapa. :slight_smile: (Their views are related, and in AN6.57 Purana Kassapa even praises that of Makkhali.)

Makkhali Gosāla’s view is also described in detail in DN2. (Edit: as yeshe.tenley also said.) :smile:

My essential point remains the same, that this is not the annihilationist doctrine. In fact, Makkhali Gosāla resolutely affirms the existence of rebirth so isn’t a materialist annihilationist like Ajita Kesakambala.

I too would be interested to see suttas where annihilationism is described as the worst doctrine. They might well exist, but I don’t remember any off the top of my head. Many other suttas refer to it and discuss it in various ways. DN1, DN23, MN11, MN22, MN60, MN76, SN22.85, SN12.15, and Iti49 come to mind. All of them treat it as wrong view, of course, not as right view. But none seem to indicate it is a particularly a bad doctrine.

In fact, in MN22 annihilism isn’t praised in any way, but still the Buddha is mistaken as an annihilationist and nibbāna as annihilation. This happens to this day, I would say. Anyway, it indicates that there is some similarity in the views, at least from the ordinary person’s point of view (that is, the non-noble ones).

But one of the fundamental differences is again made clear in the discourse: annihilation is taking things personal. Someone thinks they have a self, then hears the Buddha speaking about cessation and nibbāna, then concludes:

'So I shall be annihilated! So I shall perish! So I shall be no more!’ Then he sorrows, grieves, and laments, he weeps beating his breast and becomes distraught. That is how there is agitation about what is non-existent internally. [i.e. about an “I” or self that gets annihilated]

1 Like
20

thanks again for the update, I think I understand what you are saying now.

1 Like
21

I don’t know. There seems to be a great deal of confusion amongst the EBT about these teachers and mixing them up. This is from Gilgit Buddhist Manuscripts:

Ajita Keśakambala’s theory

evam uktaḥ ajitaḥ keśakambalaḥ mām idam avocat: aham asmi mahārāja evaṁdṛṣṭir evaṁvādī; sapta ime kāyāḥ akṛtāḥ akṛtakṛtāḥ anirmitāḥ anirmāṇakṛtāḥ avadhyāḥ kūṭasthāḥ iṣīkāvad avasthitaḥ; katame sapta tadyathā pṛthivīkāyaḥ apkāyaḥ tejaḥkāyaḥ vāyukāyaḥ sukhaṁ duḥkhaṁ jīvajīvam eva saptamam itīme sapta kāyāḥ akṛtāḥ akṛtakṛtāḥ anirmitāḥ anirmāṇakṛtāḥ avadhyāḥ kūṭasthāḥ iṣīkāvad avasthitaḥ; te neñjanti; na pariṇamanti; nānyonyaṁ vyābādhante puṇyāya vā pāpāya vā; puṇyapāpāya vā; sukhāya vā duḥkhāya vā; sukhaduḥkhāya vā; yo ’py asau puruṣaḥ puruṣasya śiraś chinatti so ’pi na kiṁcil loke vyābādhate trasaṁ vā sthāvaraṁ vā saptānāṁ kāyānāṁ vivaram antareṇa śastraṁ vyativartate; na cātra jīvo vadhyate; tatra nāsti kaścid hantā vā ghātayitā vā chettā vā chedayitā vā; smartā vā smārayitā vā; cottā vā codayitā vā; vijñaptā vā vijñāpayitā vā; caturdaśemāni yonipramukhasahasrāṇi ṣaṣṭisahasrāṇi mahāpratipadaḥ ṣaṭ śatāni pañca ca karmāṇi trīṇi ca karmāṇi dve ca karmaṇī karma ca ardhakarma ca dvāṣaṣṭiḥ karmāṇi dvāṣaṣṭiḥ antarapratipadaḥ sapta saṁjñāḥ viṁśatyadhikaṁ narakaśataṁ triṁśadadhikam indriyaśataṁ ṣaṭtriṁśad rajodhātavaḥ ekānnapañcāśan nāgakulasahasrāṇi ekānnapañcāśat suparṇikulasahasrāṇy ekānnapañcāśad ājīvakulasahasrāṇy ekānnapañcāśad acelakulasahasrāṇy ekānnapañcāśan nigranthakulasahasrāṇy sapta saṁjñikalpāḥ sapta asaṁjñikalpāḥ sapta surāḥ sapta paiśācāḥ sapta ādityāḥ sapta mānuṣāḥ sapta sarāṁsi sapta saraśśatāni sapta apāyāḥ sapta apāyaśatāni sapta svapnāḥ sapta svapnaśatāni sapta prabuddhāḥ sapta prabuddhaśatānisapta prapātāḥ sapta prapātaśatāni ṣaḍ abhijātayo daśa abhivṛddhayaḥ aṣṭau mahāpuruṣabhūmayaḥ iti; imāni caturaśītir mahākalpasahasrāṇi yāni bālaś ca paṇḍitaś ca saṁdhāvya saṁsṛtya duḥkhasyāntaṁ kurutaḥ; tadyathā laghusūtraguḍakam upari vihāyasā kṣiptaṁ yāvat pṛthivīm udveṣṭyamānaṁ paraity evam evaitāni caturaśītir mahākalpasahasrāṇi yāni bālaś ca paṇḍitaś ca saṁdhāvya saṁsṛtya duḥkhasyāntaṁ kurutaḥ; tatra nāsti kaścit śramaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā ya evaṁ vadet: aham anena śīlena vā vratena vā tapasā vā brahmacaryavāsena vā aparipakvaṁ vā karma paripācayiṣyāmi paripakvaṁ vā karma spṛṣṭvā vāntīkariṣyāmi; dhruvam idaṁ sukhaduḥkham; utkarṣāpakarṣau na prajñāyete; evaṁ vā no vā tulitaḥ saṁsāraḥ iti

Ajita Kesakambala responded to me: ‘I hold such a view and speak thus: there are seven elements that are uncreated, unmade, not formed, not fabricated, indestructible, and stand firm like reed shafts. These seven are: the earth element, water element, fire element, air element, pleasure, pain, and the life principle itself. These elements do not interact or affect each other, either for good or bad karma, happiness or suffering. Even if someone cuts off another person’s head, it does not affect anything in the world, neither mobile nor immobile. The sword passes through the gaps between these seven elements without killing the life principle. There is no killer, no one causing death, no cutter, no one causing to cut; no one remembering or causing to remember; no one urging or causing to urge; no one informing or causing to inform. There are 14 thousand yoni doorways, 64 thousand great paths, 600 fivefold karmas, threefold karmas, twofold karmas, single karma, half karma, 62 karmas, 62 intermediate paths, seven sensations, more than twenty hells, more than thirty senses, 36 elements of dust, 105 thousand families of serpents, 105 thousand families of birds, 105 thousand families of Ājīvikas, 105 thousand families of naked ascetics, 105 thousand families of Jain ascetics, seven conscious states, seven unconscious states, seven heavens, seven types of demons, seven suns, seven types of humans, seven lakes, seven hundred lakes, seven miseries, seven hundred miseries, seven dreams, seven hundred dreams, seven awakenings, seven hundred awakenings, seven falls, seven hundred falls, six noble births, ten noble growths, eight great human states, etc. These constitute 84,000 great eons through which both the ignorant and the wise run and transmigrate, experiencing the end of suffering. This is like a small ball of thread thrown into the air and unrolling until it reaches the ground. In this cycle of 84,000 great eons, no one can say that by virtue, vow, austerity, or living the holy life, they will ripen unripe karma or exhaust ripe karma. There is fixed happiness and suffering; no distinction of higher or lower is perceived. Such is the endless cycle of existence.’ San Mu Kd 17

This is machine translation, but it is definitely ascribing the view of transmigration in this case to the famous hair-blanket annihilationist of DN 2.

:pray:

2 Likes