SuttaCentral
In relationship to duty to parent, it feels reaching.
My take is that it is a category of being, counterpart of ‘spontaneously born’.
It includes Hen & rooster.
The next item -
Spontaneous born includes Hell beings & deva.
The two items cover non-spiritual beings.
I don’t think it is counterpart of ‘son/daughter’.
Hey,
One thing I haven’t changed my mind on is that I think the commentarial idea of it referring to moral duty towards parents can be rejected. That would have been stated differently in the Pali, I’m sure.
I also haven’t changed my mind that the whole context concerns primarily materialism (wrong view) and kamma-driven rebirth (right view). But how exactly the mother and father come into the picture I’m unsure. I think my suggestion still has a bit of merit (that it refers to there will be no mother and father), but I think it is probably more likely to be something to do with @Sujato’s explanation—that it may have something to do with caste system of the time, and perhaps some other ideas not explained in the Pali Canon. However, he hasn’t explained how “there is nothing given” relates to that, while my suggestion of it being offerings to the departed does at least have some connection with the mother and father and rebirth.
I don’t think “no rebirth by mother and father” works well with the verb n’atthi, which just says “there is (or will be) no mother and father”, plus mother and father are in the nominative case, hence they are the subject of the statement.
I hadn’t re-read that post. Actually, I think we are saying pretty much the same thing:
I tied it more to a denial of rebirth from mother and father, but this just means that beings appear from the elements and then disband, as in Bhante Sujato’s post above. That this relates to the following ‘sattā opapātikā’ I find probable as well as a way to include other beings: “there is no rebirth from mother or father, or rebirth in general from spontaneous arising; it is all impersonal elements.” Maybe ‘birth’ in general is what is denied as opposed to rebirth specifically, which is more what I see Bhante Sujato proposing. Both are very similar of course. The reason I thought of ‘rebirth’ specifically is because this is a view of annihilationists and because it is next to ‘opapātikā.’
While “natthi mātā” is obviously not a translation of “there is no [re]birth by mother,” and you are right to point this out, I just propose that it is the elaborated implication of the statement like Bhante Sujato pointed to. This all may very well have been due to questions of caste or something. If this is not the case, I’d agree with your original idea that atthi refers to ‘will be’ / non-rebirth of parents. I’m also not 100% convinced of either reading, but I find both more likely than ‘no duty to mother and father’ as you do.
I’m mostly repeating myself I suppose, but saw the connection once you pointed it out.
Mettā 
Coming late to this conversation, I had been coming to the same conclusion as @Sunyo. Thank you for the clear expression and nice alternative translation.
This entire summary of wrong view does seem similar to the Cārvākas, as explained by Bronkhorst.
" Note to begin with that the Cārvākas upheld a form of materialism, but not only that. Among their other positions the rejection of what is called “another world” is especially prominent; in practice this primarily concerns the rejection of rebirth and karmic retribution. The most often cited sūtra in this connection is: paralokino ‘bhāvāt paralokābhāvaḥ “There is no other-world because of the absence of any other-worldly being (i.e., the transmigrating self).” etc. [Greater Magadha Studies in the Culture of Early India 151 f.].
Why was it important to reject this wrong view in particular, among all the other wrong views? Could it be that the Buddhist doctrine of anattā was sometimes conflated with Cārvāka materialism?
Hi venerable.
Maybe. The Buddha was accused of teaching annihilation, after all. But it could also simply have been a rather prominent view of the time. Or because it was a particularly harmful view from a moral perspective.
Now, I found that a Chinese parallel discusses the materialist view in quite similar terms but WITHOUT mentioning the mother and father:
https://suttacentral.net/sa156/en/analayo
This makes me even more convinced that the wrong view described in the Pali is just that of materialism, and that we have to fit “no mother and father” into that somehow. The offerings and karmic retribution are mentioned, although differently.
This materialism is also called natthika-vāda in the canon. This is usually translated as nihilism, but I think that’s perhaps not really accurate. It means more specifically non-survival after death. This aligns with the view mentioned in the Kaccanagotta Sutta (SN12.15) named natthitā, which I would say basically means “not-survival-ness”. The view is in SN12.17 specifically called annihilism.
Of course, these are the main views of the world: either after one life there is nothing, or there is eternal life of whatever form. It’s basically only the Buddha who suggested something else, the middle way in both SN12.15 and SN12.17 being the middle between eternalism and annihilism/materialism.
Edit: And come to think of it, since it’s called n’atthikavāda, then this kind of natthi (i.e. not exist after death) may be indeed what’s meant by “there is no mother”.
Hi all,
I’ve been looking at this again for some translations I’m working on. I noticed Bhante @Sujato added a footnote:
The denial of “mother and father” is usually interpreted as the denial of moral duty towards ones’ parents. However, I think it is a doctrine of conception which denies that a child is created by the mother and father. Rather, the child is produced by the four elements, with parents as mere instigators and incubators.
The commentary doesn’t really speak about duties, but about results of conduct towards one’s parents. Regardless, I think Ven. Sujato presents a better interpretation than the traditional one, because it fits the surrounding materialist doctrine much better. I am still not really convinced by it, however, primarily because it would imply the Buddha’s positive phrasing—that there are mother and father—meant that the child is truly created by the parents. This doesn’t really align with the Buddha’s doctrines on karma and so forth. It would almost be a confirmation of the caste system, which he of course didn’t support.
(In MN93, for example, although the term gandhabba is somewhat obscure, he says that one can’t say whether the child to be born of a Brahmin woman was a noble, or a brahmin, or a merchant, or a worker. The Chinese parallel takes this to refer to their past life.)
Unless I’m misunderstanding Bhante’s idea…
I’m still inclined to take the phrase to refer to the future, i.e., one’s mother and father won’t exist. Māgadhabhāsā p.91 says the present indicative (in this case atthi) can be used to indicate a certain or inevitable future. It seems the present tense is not infrequently used for statements about a post-mortem situation, as in na hoti paraṃ maraṇā, for example. AN4.173 specifically uses natthi in this context as well, with the same annihilistic sentiment, I would argue.
I further think that the mother and father, although the terms are in the singular, stand for one’s ancestors more generally. The denial of there being no mother and father can thus alternatively be understood as “there are no ancestors”. This fits the materialistic doctrine and society in general, where ancestor worship (such as the Pitrs of the Vedas) was a big thing.
I’m just wondering if anybody has any more thoughts on this, having given it some time since we last discussed this.
Partible paternity is the belief that a child is formed by (the semen) of multiple fathers. It is a belief found in several extant South American tribes.
So indeed, it is plausible that conceptions about conception (pun not intended!) which seem strange to us now could have been present, one of which would have been something like, “the child which appears in the womb has no relation to (what we mistakenly call) the mother and father.”
On the other hand, @Sunyo , I think the Chinese parallel you found which does not include this statement is strong support for your initial hypothesis.
Edit: maybe not, see the post below this
That has a parallel in the Pali canon as well that does mention mother and father - SN 24.5 - and if you look at the structure and language it is definite that the two are quite parallel. All of this is tied back to the view of Ajita of the hair blanket from DN 2 which also mentions “Four men with a bier carry away the corpse.” Maybe this reference isn’t anymore helpful to understand what is meant by mother and father, but I tend to think the reading of ‘the existence of mother and father after death’ is what is being referred to as well given the surrounding context.
As an alternative, I’ll say that in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, one of the practices of the Bodhisattva is to view all beings as having been mother and father in the past aeons of cycles of samsara. To cultivate the mind that thinks of all other beings as having been ones own mother and father in the past so as to generate an altruistic wish towards them. This ‘no mother or father’ view would definitely make that difficult.
If we posit that this Tibetan Buddhist teaching has as origin the Buddha - where other references may have been lost in the Pali canon - then it would make sense what is being said here: “there is mother and father” could be a positive affirmation that one should regard all others as having been mother and father in the past.
I could be mistaken, but I believe something quite literally close to this may be stated in the Pali canon as well. Something like, “it is hard to find a being who has not been your mother…”
Oh?! I’d greatly appreciate it if you could find this. Maybe it will be helpful in this discussions context and maybe not, but it would be helpful to me in helping further ground my Tibetan Buddhism with Pali canon.
SN15.14 is one example
I found this parallel text as well which is from the Gilgit Buddhist Manuscripts of the Mūlasarvāstivāda School. It mentions mother and father and ascribes the views that DN 2 references to Ajita Kesakambali as coming from Purana Kassapa:
eko ’yaṁ bhadanta samayaḥ, ahaṁ yena pūraṇaḥ kāśyapaḥ tenopasaṁkrāntaḥ; upasaṁkramya pūraṇaṁ kāśyapam evaṁ vadāmi: ime bhadanta kāsyapa pṛthaglokeśilpasthānakarmasthānikāḥ; tadyathā mālākārāḥ naḍakārāḥ naiṣadyikāḥ yāvasikāḥ sūtāḥ hastyārohāḥ aśvārohāḥ rathikāḥ tsarukāḥ dhanurgrahāḥ sevāḥ ceṭāḥ piṇḍabhujaḥ ugrāḥ śūrāḥ praskandinaḥ mahānagnāḥ rājaputrāḥ ārādhakāḥ kalpakāḥ snapakāḥ; te svakasvakaiḥ śilpasthānakarmasthānaiḥ kṛtyāni kurvanti, dānāni dadati, puṇyāni kurvanti, bhṛtyān bibhrati; paṁcabhiś ca kāmaguṇaiḥ samarpitāḥ samanvaṅgībhūtāḥ krīḍanti ramante paricārayanti; labhyam evaṁrūpāṇāṁ sāndṛṣṭikaṁ śrāmaṇyaphalaṁ prajñaptum
"There was a time, respected one, when I approached Pūraṇa Kāśyapa. I said to him: ‘Respected Kāśyapa, in this world, there are various craftsmen and professionals; such as garland makers, carpenters, archers, weavers, elephant riders, horse riders, charioteers, bowyers, servants, messengers, beggars, strong men, warriors, sons of kings, worshipers, creators, and bath attendants. Each performs their duties, gives donations, does meritorious deeds, and supports their dependents. They indulge in the five sensual pleasures. Is it possible to define the visible fruits of such a life as a householder?’
sa evam āha: aham asmi mahārāja evaṁdṛṣṭir evaṁvādī; nāsti dattaṁ nāsti
iṣṭaṁ nāsti hutaṁ nāsti sucaritaṁ nāsti sucaritaduścaritānāṁ karmaṇāṁ phalavipākaḥ nāsty ayaṁ lokaḥ nāsti paralokaḥ nāsti mātā nāsti pitā nāsti satva upapādukaḥ na santi loke ’rhantaḥ samyaggatāḥ samyakpratipannāḥ ye imaṁ ca lokaṁ paraṁ ca lokaṁ dṛṣṭa eva dharme svayam abhijñayā sākṣātkṛtvā upasaṁpadya pravedayante: kṣīṇā me jātiḥ uṣitaṁ brahmacaryaṁ kṛtaṁ karaṇīyaṁ nāparam asmād bhavaṁ prajānīmaḥ iti; ihaiva jīvo jīvati sa pretyocchidyate vinaśyati na bhavati paraṁ maraṇād cāturmahābhautikaḥ puruṣasya samucchrayaḥ; yasmin samaye kālaṁ karoti tasya pṛthivyāṁ pṛthivīkāyaḥ upaiti; apsu apkāyaḥ; tejasi tejaḥkāyaḥ; vāyau vāyukāyaḥ; ākāśe indriyāṇy anuparivartante; āsandīpañcamāḥ puruṣāḥ puruṣam ādāya śmaśānam anuvrajanty ādahanāt paraṁ na prajñāyate; bhasmībhavanti āhutayaḥ; kapotavarṇāny asthīny avatiṣṭhanti iti; dṛptopajñātaṁ dānaṁ; paṇḍitopajñātaḥ parigrahaḥ; tatra ye astivādinaḥ sarve te riktaṁ tucchaṁ mṛṣā pralapanti iti bālaś ca paṇḍitaś ca ubhāv api etau pretya ucchidyete vinaśyataḥ na bhavataḥ paraṁ maraṇāt
Pūraṇa Kāśyapa replied: ‘I am such a person, great king, who holds and speaks this view: There is no giving, no sacrifice, no good or bad deeds, no fruit or result of good and bad actions, no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously arisen beings. There are no noble ones or those rightly on the path in this world who, having directly experienced and realized the Dharma themselves, proclaim: “My births are finished, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.” A living being lives here only and perishes and is annihilated after death. At death, a person’s earth element returns to the earth, the water element to water, the fire element to fire, the air element to air, and the senses disappear into space. Funeral rites are carried out, but after cremation, nothing is known; the offerings turn to ashes and bones remain. Any charity given is wasted, any possessions collected are in vain. Those who speak of existence, they all speak empty, false, vain words. The wise and the foolish both perish and are annihilated after death, with no existence after death.’
tadyathā bhadanta āmrāṇi pṛṣṭaḥ lakucāni vyākuryāt, lakucāni vā pṛṣṭaḥ āmrāṇi vyākuryād eva pūraṇaḥ kāśyapaḥ mayā sāndṛṣṭikaṁ śrāmaṇyaphalaṁ pṛṣṭaḥ nāstitām eva vyākārṣīt; tasya mama bhadanta etad abhavat; na mama pratirūpaṁ syād yan mādṛśo vijñapuruṣaḥ sādhurūpasaṁmataṁ viṣayanivāsinaṁ śramaṇaṁ vā brāhmaṇaṁ vā saṁmukham avasādayed iti; so ’haṁ bhadanta pūraṇasya kāśyapasya bhāṣitaṁ nābhinandāmi na pratikrośāmi; anabhinandya apratikrośya utthāyāsanāt prakrāntaḥ
Just as a person asked about mangoes might describe citrons, and vice versa, so too Pūraṇa Kāśyapa, when asked about the visible fruits of a religious life, spoke only of non-existence. I thought, ‘It would not be fitting for a discerning person like me to be disheartened by facing such a religious man or Brahmin.’ Thus, respected one, I neither appreciated nor criticized the words of Pūraṇa Kāśyapa. Without approval or objection, I rose from my seat and left."
San Mu Kd 17
The above is machine translated.
That sanskrit text above had me go and look and lo and behold I found this Hindu verse which I think comes from the Skanda Purana
mātā nāsti pitā nāsti nāsti me svajano janaḥ |
hariṃ vinā na ko’pyasti yadyuktaṃ tadvidhīyatām
Which seems to translate as:
I do not know any mother, father, or relative. God is everything to me
It could be that what is referenced in the Buddhist canon is this ancient Hindu verse.
Another possible reading is that your mother and father do not follow you at the death and breakup of the body because of your own annihilation. That at the time after death, there is no mother, no father, no offerings, nothing taken, nothing given, etc. Perhaps it means:
“You can’t take anything with you.”
Given some of the Hindu verses I’m finding searching for 'no mother, no father" in Sanskrit I think this is also a plausible reading.
The denial of mother and father may stem from an overall denial of relationships extending into the past.
“No good deeds, no bad deeds …”
This is another denial that the bonds we form in this life carry on to the next; that the persons who are your mother and father are random egg and sperm donors (opposed to the idea that we travel through samsara in small tribes).
The suttas have, if I’m not mistaken, instances where Moggallana and Sariputta are given historical context from past life’s with reference to being the right hand men of the enlightened one. Ie. it’s no accident that when the Buddha’s enlightenment was ready for the making, the two Brahman youths would be born at exactly the right time and place. We travel in collectives.
So, “no father and no mother” - mean also, “your dear friends are random and have no samsaric bond with you; as are your brother and your sisters”.
To illustrate the idea that mother and father do exist we can examine Moggallana the Arahats eventual murder. Why was he murdered? Even an Arahant can come to such an untimely end?
It was due to past actions ripening (poor Moggallana had a history of bad rebirths - even as Mara once upon a time). So who murdered him? Random strangers?
Likely people he had wronged in a past life (or multiple past lives). Such is the primitive nature of kamma and samsara. Life lessons so to speak. A simple form of justice from one bad action in this life to one bad consequence in the next.
Our kin however are the people we’ve shared really good experiences with over the (millions) of years. Of course, that changes. People move on to new potential mothers and fathers, wife’s and even the children they bear will inevitably become different as the years go on.
But a dear mother or father in this life can be a dear wife or husband in the next or a dear son or daughter in the next. Such is the primitive interpretation of Samsara and kamma.
Oh, this is really interesting for what I’m working on, thanks! It’s a bit off topic… but let me share. Of particular interest to me is that, while the Pāli sums the materialist view up as “he answered with the doctrine of annihilationism” (ucchedaṁ byākāsi), in this parallel the view is summed up as (per your machine translation) “he spoke only of non-existence”, nāstitām eva vyākārṣīt. This aligns with what the Pali commentaries and Nagarjuna say about natthitā in the Kaccanagotta Sutta (SN12.15), namely that it refers to annihilation.
OK, back to father and mother. 
The (probably) Skanda Purana verse you quoted is very similar in words, but on first glance seems contextually very different, as it talks about God, not about annihilation. So I’m not sure it is connected. It may be that similar phrases “floated around”, used in different context by different teachers. We see that elsewhere too.
Thanks all, for sharing an interest in this particular statement. 
I’m gunna talk out of turn a little bit and go on a rant, because the primitive superstitious familial qualities of kamma and samsara are a deep topic.
First, we humans are a special breed. We exist with our names inscribed on our heart. And there’s about 20,000 names to go about - all distinct with some of us being superior to others and vice versa.
We move in tribes. And we exist as archetypes - not only in the general understanding of that word, but as literal versions of a perfect example of our self.
I have the “Moses”/“Jesus”/“Krishna” archetype. Not bragging here. I’m a regular Joe Schmo. But I move in the Moses tribe (I have nothing to do with those people however).
In my last incarnation, I had a wife “Beratta”. That isn’t her name. That’s the name inscribed on her heart. Which, by the way, is the reason why naming a child is so important. It’s important to give that child their hearts name or some culturally modified version of that hearts name.
Which is why when you see a “Nathan” (for eg). It’s always like “Yeah! He looks like a “Nathan”!”
But People don’t name their children “Jesus” (in North America they don’t). But they do name their children “Christopher”. It’s the cultural adoption of a name recognized to be inscribed on the heart.
Like breeds of dogs, we all have our personality traits. Something like a zodiac of names - a horoscope of names.
Although I don’t think this is the intended meaning of the said sutta passage, even now in India, great spiritual masters are addressed as Bhagavān. Poetically speaking, it’s god himself looking out through those eyes, not the son or daughter of such and such.
Venerable Yeshe. In MN 117, no mother & no father is part of nihilistic no good & bad karma view that does not have attributes of merit (good deeds). When there is right view, MN 117 says these right view good deeds ripen in attachment. This means to believe there is a self of mother & a self of father. Jataka Stories about meritorious karma tell us mother, father, son, daughter, husband & wife can be reborn together over many lifetimes. Good deeds & mother & father can be taken with you.
Venerable Yeshe. There is a verse I read in the Dhammapada saying to “kill the mother & father”. This Dhammapada verse reads Transcendent; meaning to give up the self-view of ‘mother’ & ‘father’. You mentioned MN 117 in another topic that is about two types of right view - a meritorious right view and a Noble Transcendent Right View. Mother & father in MN 117 is not Noble Transcendent Right View. It cannot mean: “You can’t take anything with you.” Jataka Stories about meritorious karma tell us mother, father, son, daughter, husband & wife can be reborn together over many lifetimes.