Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Hi,

I gather that "wrong view" amounts to nihilism, denial of kamma and dismissal of religion or spiritual practice. But some of the details are a little oblique. Perhaps someone could explain them?

What is "nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrified"? Does this refer to religious practices and rituals?

What are "spontaneously reborn beings"? Could you give an example?

Who are "mother and father" in this context? Is this simply about the wrong, narcissistic view that the world began and will end with "me"?

Is "this world, no next world" specifically about rebirth, or more generally about denying there is a future? For example, if a government destroys vital resources or runs up debts later generations will have to pay, clearly the people involved are failing to see there is a next world.

Thanks for your help!


LE

The Buddha wrote: And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...

Hi

What is "nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrified"? Does this refer to religious practices and rituals?

I take this part of the quote you give at the bottom to mean everything belongs or does not belong to anyone else, so theft and ownership is impossible, where as there is a object we can call a self and use the me, my, mine, but nothing which can truly be grasped onto as a self.

What are "spontaneously reborn beings"? Could you give an example?

Hi

Who are "mother and father" in this context? Is this simply about the wrong, narcissistic view that the world began and will end with "me"?

I think you are right there

Is "this world, no next world" specifically about rebirth, or more generally about denying there is a future? For example, if a government destroys vital resources or runs up debts later generations will have to pay, clearly the people involved are failing to see there is a next world.

that whole section I believe is about the nihilistic view of nothing exists not even now exists.

hope this helps

Manapa wrote:

What are "spontaneously reborn beings"? Could you give an example?

Hi

Hi Manapa, and thanks. What I'm wondering about there is the difference between "reborn" and "spontaneously reborn". What is the meaning of "spontaneous" in this context?

Rebirth has been compared to a flame passed by a candle to another candle. But when I hear "spontaneous", I think of spontaneous combustion. Such combustion usually happens when certain conditions are present. I could see how this might relate to kammic energies, perhaps -- some latent potential that causes a being to arise. Not sure if this is on the right track.

LE

Lazy_eye wrote:Perhaps someone could explain [the details of wrong view]?

As explained to me by Bikkhu Bodhi... as recalled by my spotty memory...

The Buddha wrote:nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed

no karmic benefit to generosity

no fruit or result of good or bad actions

no karma or vipaka

no this world, no next world

no future birth, no other realms to be born into

no mother, no father

no reason to honor one's birth mother and father

no spontaneously reborn beings

no beings born in the heavenly realms (they are spontaneously born because they are not born to parents as babies that grow but rather spontaneously appear fully grown)

no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves

no people who know first-hand that these things really exist.

Ven. Bodhi gave a series of lectures on the Right View Sutta here. I hope this is helpful.

Hi LE

What I'm wondering about there is the difference between "reborn" and "spontaneously reborn". What is the meaning of "spontaneous" in this context?

Rebirth has been compared to a flame passed by a candle to another candle. But when I hear "spontaneous", I think of spontaneous combustion. Such combustion usually happens when certain conditions are present. I could see how this might relate to kammic energies, perhaps -- some latent potential that causes a being to arise. Not sure if this is on the right track.

I am not sure of the candle reference, the only sutta that rings a bell I can not remember the name to check but I don't think the candle passing its flame is to do with Rebirth from one life to the next of "me" but rather generosity, but that is off the top of my head!
I wouldn't say there are any differences between the meaning with the addition of Spontaneous.
WM
Manpa

Lazy_eye wrote: What is "nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed"? Does this refer to religious practices and rituals?

In the Buddha's time, they gave offerings and sacrifices to the gods, the way many Buddhists give offerings to bodhisattvas and Buddhas today. What he means is those who say that these rituals don't do anything. It's applicable to any religious offerings of any religion today.

Lazy_eye wrote: What are "spontaneously reborn beings"? Could you give an example?

You and me.

Lazy_eye wrote: Who are "mother and father" in this context? Is this simply about the wrong, narcissistic view that the world began and will end with "me"?

Yes.

Lazy_eye wrote: Is "this world, no next world" specifically about rebirth, or more generally about denying there is a future?

Both.

Spontaneous rebirth refers to rebirth in the heavens, in hell, or as hungry ghosts.

Mother and father have a special relationship to us. Killing one's mother or father (like killing an Arahant) is an evil deed with definite result — rebirth in hell after death (see the story of Ajātasattu). Killing any other human being does not definitely lead to rebirth in hell, and it is still possible to attain the Path and its Fruition in this very life to avoid that fate (see the story of Angulimāla or Tambadatthika).

The Exposition of Right View

I've been busy at work the past two days and didn't have the chance to thank you for all the responses. They have been very helpful.

LE

As been explained fairly well, one of the notions expressed have to do with the Vedic sacrifice and the denial that this will effect our post-mortem death. Also it is a denial of the heavens and the realm of the father's which was commonly believed you would go if the proper sacrifices were made.

The fact of the matter is that this promulgation of "wrong view" is a stock passage that was never spoken by the Buddha (it was taken out of context from Ajita Kesakambali in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta). If you notice the "wrong view" is a series of multiple views which carries with it the notion that it is wrong view to deny the effectiveness of the sacrifice. The Buddha always denouced the Vedic sacrifice.

I wrote more about this "wrong view" in my blog at:

http://dreamwhitehorses.blogspot.com/20 ... -view.html

--DarkDream

Dear DarkDream,

I fail to understand your objection. "There is nothing given..." is a stock passage for a view that the Buddha always disagrees with. I don't see any logic in your blog that renders it bogus just because it is used by people other than the Buddha.

I think you are reading too much into the translated words such as "given" and "sacraficed". I'm sure someone more knowledgeable in Pali could comment, but as Bhikkhu Bodhi says in footnote 425 referring to the passage in MN 41 Sāleyyaka Sutta:

"There is nothing given" means that there is no fruit of giving...

He doesn't specifically mention "sacraficed" in that footnote, but I've certainly heard him comment on it in some talk or other...

Metta
Mike

Dark Dream,

You raise some interesting points. What I'm getting here is that the Buddha clearly sought to define his teaching against philosophical materialism. Those compiling the suttas were so intent on putting this point across that they simply quoted Ajita Kesakambali whenever they wanted to illustrate Wrong View.

I've read somewhere that despite the Buddha's disagreements with the religions of the day, he nevertheless believed religion (in general) was preferable to non-belief, as it makes the spiritual life possible -- why embark on a spiritual practice if you don't believe in spirituality? So, especially in talking to householders -- who would be getting the "mundane" edition of his teachings -- he would have discouraged them from embracing nihilistic attitudes and doubting the efficacy of religion.

Maybe if he were around today, he would use some Christian terminology when addressing Christians -- if the subject was religious life in general and the dangers posed by materialism.

Had an article I was going to link to, but of course now I can't find it...

LE

mikenz66 wrote:Dear DarkDream,

I fail to understand your objection. "There is nothing given..." is a stock passage for a view that the Buddha always disagrees with. I don't see any logic in your blog that renders it bogus just because it is used by people other than the Buddha.

I think you are reading too much into the translated words such as "given" and "sacraficed". I'm sure someone more knowledgeable in Pali could comment, but as Bhikkhu Bodhi says in footnote 425 referring to the passage in MN 41 Sāleyyaka Sutta:

"There is nothing given" means that there is no fruit of giving...

He doesn't specifically mention "sacraficed" in that footnote, but I've certainly heard him comment on it in some talk or other...

Metta
Mike

Mike, I think maybe you are misunderstanding my point. I may not have articulated very well, but I am not saying that the Buddha disagreed overall with the notion expressed in the stock phrase. In my blog, I say:

the Buddha most certainly disagreed with the overall notion that actions do not lead to any result

I do think that the Buddha agreed that there was fruit of giving. There more than amble evidence that suggests this. I personally don't believe that the Buddha agreed with each piece of the stock passage -- namely the part that talked about sacrifice. It is fairly clear that Ajita Kesakambali (that is where the stock passage came from) was referring of the Vedic sacrifice of animals to gain favors to the gods. The Buddha never thought killing animals under superstitious pretenses was a good thing.

I would be very surprised if you could find a comment from Bhikkhu Bodhi on what the "sacrifice" element of wrong view is. I get the impression from him that the suttas are almost a perfect edifiace. Take a look at his response given in a review to Gombrich's book, "How Buddhism Began" (http://www.buddhistethics.org/4/bodhi1.html):

To my mind, the texts of the four Nikāyas form a strikingly consistent and harmonious edifice, and I am confident that the apparent inconsistencies are not indicative of internal fissuring but of subtle variations of method that would be clear to those with sufficient insight.

"Sufficient Insight?" Gombrich is one of the leading Buddhist scholars of the world who has spent over 30 years studying it. This seems to be nothing but an ad hominem attack.

The point is who cares what Bhikkhu Bodhi says or even Gombrich.

Look at the arguments, and at the evidence (some I believe I provided which is fairly convincing) and come to your own conclusions.

--DarkDream

DarkDream wrote: I would be very surprised if you could find a comment from Bhikkhu Bodhi on what the "sacrifice" element of wrong view is.

They are certainly there somewhere in his talks on the MN here:
http://www.bodhimonastery.net/bm/about- ... ?showall=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DarkDream wrote: I get the impression from him that the suttas are almost a perfect edifiace. Take a look at his childish response given in a review to Gombrich's book, "How Buddhism Began" (http://www.buddhistethics.org/4/bodhi1.html)

I quite like some of what Gombrich says, but it is clear from the chapter on meditation in that book that he has a poor (or perhaps nonexisitent) understanding of meditation. So I tend to agree with Bhikkhu Bodhi.

Of course, you are highlighting the essential difference between a "scholar monk" and an "academic scholar".

Mike

There is about a thousand years of this kind of textual scrutiny in regards to the judeo-christian sacred scriptures and after all of that the corpus is, if anything, larger, and largely intact if not in much more robust condition overall. So, have at it. I fully expect that in about a thousand years the Tipitaka will look almost identical to today's Tipitaka and that these kinds of discussions will be held in very, very small rooms by a very, very few people.

There is about a thousand years of this kind of textual scrutiny in regards to the judeo-christian sacred scriptures and after all of that the corpus is, if anything, larger, and largely intact if not in much more robust condition overall. So, have at it. I fully expect that in about a thousand years the Tipitaka will look almost identical to today's Tipitaka and that these kinds of discussions will be held in very, very small rooms by a very, very few people

Will be interesting to see how the Tipitaka will stand up against the same textual scruitiny the bible has been subjected to

Metta