vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,
I think it is part of the view of Ajita Kesakambali as given in DN. 2.23
"When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, 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 and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.'
"Thus, when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, Ajita Kesakambalin answered with annihilation."
Jechbi wrote:Hi nowheat,
Since you're asking for our thoughts ...
It seems to me that this description of wrong view in the passage you quote is talking about an absence of mundane right view. It's contasted a few paragraphs later in the sutta with a description of mundane right view that includes the same wording: "There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrified ..." etc.
These two descriptions of mundane wrong view and mundane right view appear to be a contrast between a person who has no values, and a person who has values. The mundane wrong views described don't appear to me to be views that a person necessarily would defend in debate, or think about very much at all. Rather, the person holding such views would act as if they have no values: Whatever I do, it doesn't matter, there's no long-term consequence.
The view "no mother, no father" doesn't seem to me to necessarily mean a person who thinks he doesn't have a biological mother or a father, but rather a person who doesn't put value on honoring one's mother and father. (Of course there may also be actual philosophies that deny the existence of biological parents, but I think it's possible that there might be a simpler application for this sutta teaching.)
So step one is to recognize this wrong view that previously was not recognized. "My goodness, what nonsense have I been living? Look at the harm I've caused myself and others." This is how right view comes first: One understands wrong view as wrong view and right view as right view. And when one does so, the mundane right view of values comes into play. We treat ourselves and others with respect, not because in some ultimate sense there is self and others, but rather because this common sense of values is mundane right view.
A few paragraphs later in the sutta, supramundane right view is discussed as wisdom, and all this language about values drops away.
Anyway, that's how I read it. I realize it's not the only way to read it.
nowheat wrote:I am curious though as to where you draw the word "mundane" from (as in "mundane view") -- what source do you use for that? Also, what it means to you (not to the author of the translation that used "mundane", but to you)?
Jechbi wrote:I like it.
vinasp wrote: Are you aware that there is another sutta with a very similar ending in the Samyutta Nikaya ?
It is in part III The Book of the Aggregates, number 62 Pathways of Language.
In the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation : Connected Discourses, it is on page 905.
"Bhikkhus, even Vassa and Banna of Ukkala, proponents of noncausality, of the inefficacy of action, and of nihilism, did not think that these three pathways of language, pathways of designation, pathways of description should be criticized or scorned. For what reason ? Because they fear blame, attack, and condemnation".
vinasp wrote: The samyutta passage is translated differently by F.L. Woodward in the PTS Kindred Sayings III.
"Moreover, the folk of Ukkali, preachers in the retreat, deniers of the cause, deniers of the deed, deniers of reality ..."
Woodward is reading "vassa" as the rains retreat, and "banna" as preacher. So there may be some doubt over the correct translation. However, this only affects the question of the named teachers and their number, which is not, I think, central to your argument. There are three doctrines mentioned in all cases, so far. (ahetuvadins, akiriyavadins and natthikavadins).
vinasp wrote: Yepi te bhikkhave, ahesuṃ ukkalā vassabhaññā1 ahetuvādā akiriyavādā natthivādā, tepi mahācattārīsakaṃ dhammapariyāyaṃ na garahitabbaṃ, na paṭikkositabbaṃ2 maññiṃsu.3 Taṃ kissa hetu: nindābyārosaupārambhabhayāti.
This is the Pali of MN 117 from http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/index.html
I will look for the other text and add it ...