If your view is that everything emanates from your own mind (in a solipsistic kinda way), then the idea that you (or your mind) emanate(s) from a mother of father sounds very silly. So my suggestion is that “no mother or father” is reasonable in this case?
1 Like
Its Ajita Kesakambala’s & King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta’s view. The sutta’s view is found in DN 1, Iti 49, SN 12.17, SN 44.10, SN 22.81, SN 22.85, etc. 
1 Like
Thanks. In the suttas its mentioned as a full view three times, though. Not only in DN2 but also in MN76 and SN24.5. So by the Theravada at least it was considered one doctrine.
I would agree it has to be a shorthand that if it were the case. But then Kesakambali’s view is called Uccheda (annihilation) in DN2, not moral nihilism, which the comy takes it to be.
Moral nihilism, which btw fits better with akiriyavāda:
One time, sir, I approached Pūraṇa Kassapa and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, I sat down to one side, and asked him the same question. He said to me: ‘Great king, the one who acts does nothing wrong when they punish, mutilate, torture, aggrieve, oppress, intimidate, or when they encourage others to do the same. They do nothing wrong when they kill, steal, break into houses, plunder wealth, steal from isolated buildings, commit highway robbery, commit adultery, and lie. If you were to reduce all the living creatures of this earth to one heap and mass of flesh with a razor-edged chakram, no evil comes of that, and no outcome of evil. If you were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing, mutilating, and torturing, and encouraging others to do the same, no evil comes of that, and no outcome of evil. If you were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving and sacrificing and encouraging others to do the same, no merit comes of that, and no outcome of merit. In giving, self-control, restraint, and truthfulness there is no merit or outcome of merit.’ And so, when I asked Pūraṇa Kassapa about the fruits of the ascetic life apparent in the present life, he answered with the doctrine of akiriya. (DN2)
I said before that natthika can also well mean non-survival instead of nihilism. Some more thoughts on that. Cone says of natthika: “an unbeliever (in the existence or efficacy of good conduct, in the existence of another world, etc); a sceptic”. I think “in the existence of another world” may be the primary meaning, with “efficacy of good conduct” perhaps derived from that, if it applies at all.
In DN23 natthikavāda (as a section title) is just explained as: “There is no other world, there are no spontaneously born beings, there is no fruit or result of good or evil deeds [after death].” And in MN60 we have: “Let me assume that there is no other world: still this good person is here and now censured by the wise as an immoral person, one of wrong view who holds the doctrine of natthika.” The Koccanagotta Sutta, SN12.15, has the view natthita, of which the commentary says: “the notion of nonexistence (natthita) is annihilationism (uccheda)”. The comy seems right, for natthita is contextually much better understood in this way, not as moral nihilism. So in all these suttas it refers to there being no afterlife (and in SN12.15 specifically to a self being annihilated).
But in Snp2.2 natthika contextually leans more towards moral nihilism, for it is surrounded by all kinds of bad acts. One could argue, though, that a view of non-survival can directly contribute to such a do-whatever-you-feel-like attitude, or at least would often be understood as such by those who do hold a view of survival, like Christians will argue you need God to be moral. Also, in this text natthika is just one among many things in a verse. It’s not half as direct a context as the others.
So natthika may imply moral nihilism, but I think it primarily means non-survival after death. And therefore it’s opposite atthika means survival or post-mortem existence, like in: “Any teaching of atthika is just baseless, false nonsense. Both the foolish and wise get annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks down and will no longer exist after death.” (DN2, MN76, SN24.5)
It’s tangential to the main ideas I typed earlier, but if atthika is fundamentally about survival and not about moralism, it further supports ‘there is mother & father’ to refer to their survival too, not to having moral duties towards them.
Going back a few posts:
I feel this is mostly translation territory rather than interpretation. In Pali n’atthi can just refer to both situations. If one’s parents are already dead, then n’atthi means they don’t exist; if they’re still alive, then it means they won’t exist. The best way to put that in English, that I don’t know. “Do not survive” may work. It is also technically present tense like atthi but still implies the future, so that’s a bonus. A small gripe I may have is that “survive” has many other meanings, like in “survive a car crash” or whatever, although context will show what it means, I suppose.
Though I feel “will no longer exist” is not redundant. It can also be read as a wider statement that includes both situations—as long as it’s not read as aimed at the reader only, whose parents may indeed already be dead, but as aimed at people general. Or even if we take ‘will’ as “expressing a present tense with some conditional or subjective weakening: ‘will turn out to’, ‘must by inference’”. (Wiktionary s.v. ‘will’) My grandparents are all dead, but if some materialists said to me, “your grandparents will no longer exist”, I don’t get confused, thinking, “What do you mean? They’re dead already!” I get that they mean ‘will’ in the sense of the present, that my grandparents don’t exist anymore, because they have some reasons to infer they don’t.
But, again, I think that’s all mainly a problem of translating in English.
It doesn’t matter for the point I’m trying to make, for whether it’s just King Ajātasattu who called it annihilation or the world at large, it still implies the views “there is no mother” were generally understood to be about non-existence, not about morality.
Also, somewhat off-topic, but it doesn’t seem like the suttas allow for a one-lifetime belief without a self. As long as one doesn’t have perfect view of non-self and rebirth, one will always fall into annihilation or eternal existence. (SN12.15) Therefore the one-lifetime belief of Kesakambala, even though it doesn’t specifically mention a self being destroyed, can also be called annihilation. Anyway, doesn’t matter for how I suggest to interpret the passage.
2 Likes
I do, too. They were fairly haphazard about it at times. It’s much better than Taisho punctuation, but it isn’t perfect. My point was just that they’ve punctuated it as they would when they see 而 concluding a clause. I did a text search for passages with 命過 after I replied to check myself. It is a verb in most cases, but it’s fairly uncommon, too. There was one passage I found in SA 1025 where it does modify a person - a deceased monk in that case. So, you may well be right. It would make the most sense. I think the translator wasn’t using his words very well, and that happens. Humans are human.
[Edit: BTW, the identical passage in T375 is punctuated the other way, proving the point about CBETA punctuation.]
2 Likes
You all know this probably but the list of wrong views Buddha gives in the sutta’s is, in general exactly the Dhamma of Kesakambali. Like the teachings of Kesakambali served for the Buddha as a kind of blueprint for what is a wrong perspective on life (materialism).
I see the sutta’s also say that a certain perspective on life can be truly wrong (MN60).
From the translation of Bodhi: 8. (A.ii) "Since there actually is another world, one who holds
the view ‘there is no other world’ has wrong view. Since there actually is another world, one who intends ‘there is no other world’ has wrong intention. Since there actually is another world, one who makes the statement ‘there is no other world’ has wrong speech. Since there actually is another world, one who says ‘there is no other world’ is opposed to those arahants who know the other world. Since there actually is another world, one who convinces another ‘there is no other world’ convinces him to accept an untrue Dhamma; etc
So, it is not like all is just skillful means and a matter of perspective.
Because Buddha’s perspective on life is opposite of Kesakambali, i think it is also reasonable that this is true for mother and father. Buddha saw mother and father as special persons. For example, killing ones mother and father is karmiccaly such a heavy act that one will be reborn in hell inescapably, just like killing an arahant and wounding a Buddha. So, they are very special persons. Probably not for Kesakambali.
That there are no father and mother after death is to obvious, i think, because Kesakambali does not teach any afterlife.
Now, i will let go this opinion 
1 Like
Coming from Chinese cultural background, we have ancestor worship, which basically requires the notion of ancestors survive death somehow, as ghost, or in heaven or somewhere.
When I learnt Buddhism, ancestor worship is not emphasised in the suttas. At the most it would be dedication of merit for the ghost realms relatives. And upholding the family traditions in Sigalovada sutta. Otherwise, I totally rebel against the requirement to do ancestor worship. Why Christianity is unpopular to Chinese culture is mainly because they do not have ancestor worship, or actually actively discourage it.
If the right view is meant to be seen as parents exist after death, thus justifying ancestor worship, then why is it not a big thing in Theravada Buddhism? And it’s also not always the case that parents would exist in any form after death. As in if parents attained to arahanthood, then they would not be reborn again. Thus it seems very conditional to interpret the right views like that.
The statements which supports rebirth exist would be more for a general statement, there’s this world and a next world, there’s beings reborn spontaneously. Doesn’t imply everyone must be reborn (arahants do not).
Plato’s Republic tried to make a society where the children doesn’t know their birth parents and vice versa (I think), everyone collectively raise the children together. Thus, there can be situations where parents (as concepts) are not acknowledged to exist.
3 Likes
The above is nihilism (natthikavāda; MN 60); not annihilationism (ucchedavāda; DN 1). The doctrine of annihilationism means the belief a “self” or “existent being” is annihilated. “Annihilationism” does not mean a doctrine of non-rebirth.
But it does matter. It matters. You will end up like Bhikkhu Thanissaro, who wrote Not-Self Strategy with the view the ‘natthattā’ doctrine of Vacchagotta in SN 44.10 was the ‘anatta’ doctrine of the Buddha. 
Wow, okay, I think this is probably it. There is definitely a range of views in the ancient world about how exactly procreation happens. Consider the famous passage in MN 93 Assalāyanasutta, where the question is asked, “how is an embryo conceived”, and the brahmin hermits answer that it includes the coming together of the mother and father, as well as the gandhabba. The fact that the question is asked suggests that the answer is not obvious, and that others might have a different view.
This brahmin view argues that a new child is the product of the parents as well as an independent spirit. It does this as part of a defense of the caste doctrine. The new embryo derives its caste from the parents, but the existence of the independent spirit also allows for the operation of kamma from past lives.
And this, I imagine, is why this doctrine was adopted by the Buddhists. While rejecting the significance of caste, the doctrine still includes both biological and kammic aspects of conception.
The more extreme theorists, it seems, wanted to sever the connection with the parents altogether. This would have the consequence that the caste of the parents has zero relevance to the child. The mother is merely an incubator. That the child bears physical resemblance to the parents can be explained as mere nurture.
This being so, the rendering of opapātika as “non-physical”:
Would seem to be unjustified. This phrase and the previous form a pair, both denying a particular doctrine of how beings are produced. To paraphrase:
Beings are not created by a mother and father, nor are they spontaneously arisen.
I would guess that the proponent of this view might believe that beings are entirely formed from the four elements, curdled together from material elements under the appropriate conditions (not unlike life forming in primordial oceans).
This would have radical consequences, including that “there is no filial piety owed to mother and father”, and that “there is no rebirth of mother and father and hence no point in making offerings to them”. But the view itself is more radical than either of these.
Remember that there are a number of quite radical and counter-intuitive views proposed by various heretics, eg. SN 24.19.
‘Winds don’t blow; rivers don’t flow; pregnant women don’t give birth; the moon and stars neither rise nor set, but stand firm like a pillar’.
So denying the existence of “mother and father” isn’t too much of a stretch.
7 Likes
Hi, Ven. The passage on right view on “there is a mother, etc.” is obviously not all there is to right view. It’s just a negation of the wrong view of materialism. One’s parents existing after death doesn’t imply you have to go into full blown ancestor worship.
I think non-rebirth implies annihilation, and it seems the Pali tradition did too. I’ve explained why already. Please read what I wrote on natthikavada earlier lest we go in circles.
Not for translating the words, I don’t think, not for this topic, which is why I’ll let be.
Another interesting idea and I’m happy the topic brought us there, but I don’t know, it seems far-fetched to me. The passage of the embryo and mother and father seems mainly to point out, to me, that a spirit needs to be present, not the mother and father.
My rendering ‘non-physical’ was an experiment for a more directly understandable translation, so bracket that. The point of “no sponteneously arisen beings” doesn’t seem to be the way they arise, but that they exist in the first place. Particularly the non-returners are said to be “sponteneously arisen”, of course. That doesn’t mean they come out of nowhere, which it kinda sounds like to me.
But what would the right view version of this be, then? “Beings are created by a mother and father, and they are sponteneously arisen?”
1 Like
Yes, they can be created by mother and father (like humans or animals), or they can be spontaneously arisen (like non-returners for example).
2 Likes
Right, thanks, Ven.
I find it hard to relate to such ideas that Sujato tried to explain, so alien to our world. (Or at least mine. 
) But I think it starts to sink in a bit. Surely this interpretation is preferable over the commentaries, grammatically speaking at the very least.
I’m not convinced yet, though. For one thing because I still don’t see why “no mother” would be called uccheda in DN2. Or, as I said, why other suttas also effectively summarize the doctrine as there being “no other world”, like MN60.
And I don’t see what it has to do with “nothing given”.
1 Like
Regarding the “no mother or father”, there’s a sutta which describes one of the wrong views as “a being is merely the elements” and when one drives a sword and kills a person, they are merely just driving one piece of form (the sword) into another piece of form (the person’s body), thus there is “no person, no mother, etc… and only merely form”.
It’s obviously wrong view because it doesn’t lead to reducing unwholesomeness but to increasing unwholesomeness as the underlying assumption is nothing matters, the world is nothing but a play pen with foam squares bouncing around.
Right view must result in reducing the 3 poisons. That’s why I think a being is the 3 poisons (satta sutta), and not the 5 aggregates. It’s the 3 poisons that decides to pick up the sword in the first place, so the act is unwholesome from the get go. If your view is to stop becoming and being, then you won’t allow an intention born of the 3 poisons to grow into action.
Remember right view is that one doesn’t assume the 5 aggregates to be the self. Saying that people are merely form (or any aggregate) is once again assuming that a being is an aggregate. So in @faujidoc1’s example the person who misunderstood no-self has fallen back into identity view (i.e. self/being = aggregates)
So there are beings (mother, father, etc.) but these beings are driven and act out of the 3 poisons. When conceit is destroyed, they are no longer beings.
Using @faujidoc1 's Ven Amaro example above, I would say “you are my mother, but your desire to have me stay here is born of greed” (assuming the story is the mother not letting the son ordain)
3 Likes
You are right, but the meaning is different - There will be no mother and father (there will be no future birth from any parents)
Hello, reviving this topic after coming across an interesting little sutta that might add some more to the conversation, as it links service to parents (dedicated to the gods) with rebirth in the heavenly realms. I thought it might shed light on offerings and why caring for parents might be included with right view, as it leads to good results in future rebirths.
A difference with this text and the discussion in this thread so far is that the service/offerings are dedicated to the gods. The Buddha seems to working from older aphorisms here about family life that would have been well known to contemporary audiences, but the Buddha does the old switcheroo saying that dedicating to the gods is actually your oldies:
’ Worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods’ is a term for your parents.
which adds an interesting dimension to these activities.
“Mendicants, a family where the children honor their parents in their home is said to live with Brahmā. A family where the children honor their parents in their home is said to live with the first teachers. A family where the children honor their parents in their home is said to live with those worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods.
‘Brahmā’ is a term for your parents.
‘First teachers’ is a term for your parents.
‘Worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods’ is a term for your parents.
Why is that? Parents are very helpful to their children, they raise them, nurture them, and show them the world.
Parents are said to be ‘Brahmā’
and ‘first teachers’, it’s said.
They’re worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods from their children,
for they love their offspring.Therefore an astute person
would revere them and honor them
with food and drink,
clothes and bedding,
anointing and bathing,
and by washing their feet.Because they look after
their parents like this,
in this life they’re praised by the astute,
and they depart to rejoice in heaven.”
4 Likes
The overall point being made in Majhima Nikaya 117 is the difference between mundane right view, which is the belief in the action of kamma, and is held by those whose goal is a better rebirth, and the transcendent right view to nibbana. Belief in kamma is the foundation for transcendent right view. Those who don’t believe in the action of kamma have wrong view:
Bikkhu Bodhi discusses it here from 11.26:
Doesn’t the materialist annihilationist view cover both / all 3 of these?
If mother and father are just a bunch of material elements, then:
a) when they die they will not be reborn
b) they have no special significance in any way
c) one could say that they are not one’s real originators, and that actually one is also just a bunch of elements that the mother birthed
The materialist annihilationist view would cover the significance of parents in terms of duty and in terms of actual birth, and likewise any rebirth or continued existence, and so giving or offering to them in any way (after their death or during their life) is meaningless. Or, to summarize, “there is no mother and no father” (in any absolute sense beyond mere convention).
Mettā
2 Likes
To my understanding, MN117 addresses wrong grasping of self. Some people cannot go over dualism. They do not understand middle way. If this is blameworthy then it cannot be blameless. Self exists, so no self is wrong. How can you say that “I” do not exist? Or self does not exist from the beginning, self does not exist in an absolute sense, so if you say self exists then you are wrong.
One who clings to the non-existence of self will not accept what so-called “self, being or existence” They may say: “There is no being, there is no self, there is no self in an absolute sense, this world is just an illusion. It does not exist. It only exists in our mind. Being or self is just a bunch of elements (or a collection of aggregates)”
Since they do not accept what so-called “being” or “self”, they do not see themselves as a “being” or a “self”. Therefore, they also do not see their mother or father as a being or a self. Since they believe that there is no being or self, they do not see any being or any self doing any action, so there is no fruit and result of good and bad actions for any being or any self. They see this world is just an illusion of the mind, so this world does not exist. Same for next world.
They do not accept the so-called “being,” so there is no “being” who is reborn spontaneously. It is just a stream of consciousness after death (to avoid the so-called “being”.) There is no “being” who is reborn, so they will replace it with something else such as re-linking consciousness or stream of consciousnesses or something else besides “being or self.” Since there is no “being or self,” we cannot give or offer anything to any “being or self.” They are just a bunch of “stuffs or consciousnesses” How can we give anything to that bunch of stuffs? Who received that? Who gave that?
So their view could be:
“There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.” This is wrong view.
One who clings to the existence of self will cling to what so-called “self, being or existence.” They will say “There is self, there is being, I exist, my mother exists, my father exists, this world is real, it is not an illusion. There are beings who will be reborn. There are beings in this world and the next worlds. He gave that to me. I offer that gift to that being. That being did that action, so he will get the result of that action. There are beings who will be reborn, so there are beings who are reborn spontaneously. Those beings are the ones who will be reborn, not some “stream of consciousnesses” waiting or looking for reborn.”
So their view could be:
“There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.” This is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.
"Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.” This is the middle way!
This view is based on “the wisdom, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor, the path factor of right view in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path.” With wisdom, one will not stick to any of the extremes of existence and non-existence. This is the middle way’s view. This is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path.
With proper condition, this comes to be, Without proper condition, this ceases.
Hi,
Reading Milton’s Paradise Lost Book 5 today, I was struck by how a speech of Satan seemed similar to the denial of a mother and father being discussed.
That we were formd then saist thou? and the work
Of secondarie hands, by task transferd
From Father to his Son? strange point and new! [ 855 ]
Doctrin which we would know whence learnt: who saw
When this creation was? rememberst thou
Thy making, while the Maker gave thee being?
We know no time when we were not as now;
Know none before us, self-begot, self-rais’d [ 860 ]
By our own quick’ning power, when fatal course
Had circl’d his full Orbe, the birth mature
Of this our native Heav’n, Ethereal Sons.
Our puissance is our own,….
(This view is strongly rejected by the angel Abdiel)
3 Likes
Sorry if this topic has been exhausted, but I was thinking about it. I was (or am) almost convinced that this does relate to religious giving and that ‘atthi’ refers to the post-mortem continuation of existence. However, I see something in the text that AFAIK was overlooked here(?):
natthi mātā, natthi pitā, natthi sattā opapātikā
To me, these three are related. ‘Opapātikā’ in several Indian philosophies refers to beings who are reborn without a mother/father as the source. It would seem then that in conjunction, these lines are denying rebirth: “There is no [rebirth by] mother, father, or spontaneously.” This would of course tie into the materialist conception (‘babies are produced from elements and are just form that will be annihilated’). The religious giving and resulta of good/bad karma is where there is a denial of merit that affects rebirth (because they deny such rebirth exists).
Thoughts on this? Have you changed your mind over time? I’m still between it referring to what you proposed or the above, but it does seem like the above interpretation is less interpretive outside of the text itself which is suggestive of rebirth without parents. Curious what @sujato thinks of this in regards to the translations (i.e. “there is no rebirth by mother, father, or spontaneously”)?
Mettā
1 Like
‘I don’t belong to anyone anywhere. And nothing belongs to me anywhere.’
Whose parents?