<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Nothing is given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; there is no
  fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other
  worlds; no mother, no father; no beings who are spontaneously born;
  no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have
  themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the
  other worlds.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I have amended the translation above. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>The word <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html" rel="nofollow">'beings' ('satta') </a> is defined in the suttas as mental states of attachment &amp; identity (rather than physical life forms). 'Satta' is merely a '<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html" rel="nofollow">self-view</a>' held by Mara. </p></li>
<li><p>The very fact that 'beings' are 'spontaneously' or 'immediately born' ('opapatika') due to acts of karma into the other worlds (heaven, hell, animal &amp; ghost) show it is not related to after-death-reincarnation or a new physical birth, as explained below:</p></li>
</ol>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>32. Sariputta, there are these four kinds of generation. What are the four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born
  generation and spontaneous generation (opapatika)</em>. </p>
  
  <p><em>Maha-sihanada Sutta</em></p>
</blockquote>

<ol start="3">
<li><p>For example, the very moment the mind gets angry, it is spontaneously born as a 'hell-being'. </p></li>
<li><p>'This world' ('loka') refers to the human world of good morals &amp; conscience. The 'other worlds' ('paraloka') refer to the heavenly (bliss), hell (torment), animal (immoral, emotionally reactive &amp; unreflective) and ghost (addiction) worlds. For example, MN 79 refers to the 'world of only pleasant feelings':</p></li>
</ol>

<blockquote>
  <p>Kiṃ panudāyi, atthi ekantasukho loko, atthi ākāravatī paṭipadā
  ekantasukhassa lokassa sacchikiriyāyā</p>
  
  <p><em>Udayi, is there a world of only pleasantness? Is there a course of
  actions to realise that world of only pleasantness?</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of
  demerit abides in the first jhana: Overcoming thoughts and thought
  processs and the mind in one point internally appeased, without
  thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with
  equanimuity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too,
  abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in
  pleasantness with equanimity. Udayi, this is the course of actions,
  for realising the world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa
  lokassa).</em></p>
</blockquote>

<hr>

<hr>

<hr>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>The person is composed of the four great elements; when he dies, earth returns and goes back to the element of earth, water returns and
  goes back to the element of water, fire returns and goes back to the
  element of fire, wind returns and goes back to the element of wind,
  while the senses disappear into space. [Four] men with the bier as a
  fifth take up the corpse, the funeral orations last as far as the
  burning ground, his bones are a dull white, his offerings end in
  ashes. They are fools who teach alms-giving. The doctrine of
  affirmation (atthika-vāda) is empty and false banter. Fools and wise
  alike are destroyed and perish at the breaking up of the body, they do
  not exist after death.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>This quote from the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html" rel="nofollow">Samaññaphala Sutta</a> is not a teaching of the Buddha but a teaching of Ajita Kesakambalin. In many places (eg. MN 115, MN 62, etc) it is taught life is only composed of elements (dhatu), which accords with Emptiness (<em>sunnata</em>). That is why the Buddha's response to the doctrine of Ajita Kesakambalin is similar but different, as follows: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>'This body...is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother and father...subject to
  impermanence...dissolution and dispersion...this consciousness...is
  supported here and bound up here.'</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are two primary reasons why the doctrine of Ajita Kesakambalin (quoted) is 'nihilism'. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>The quote denies the efficacy (consequences) of kamma (actions). Thus, Buddhists who believe in present-life kamma-vipaka are not nihilists. </p></li>
<li><p>The quote holds there is a 'person' or 'self' that ends at death. This is the precise definition of 'nihilism' found in the suttas. In other words, 'nihilism' is not the view of 'impermanence' but the view that a 'self' is impermanent. Thus, 'nihilism' is a wrong view because it is a 'self-view'. To quote: </p></li>
</ol>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Herein, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self (attā), good sir, has material form; it is
  composed of the four primary elements and originates from father and
  mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated (ucchijjati) and
  destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death,
  at this point the self (attā) is completely annihilated
  (samucchinno).’ In this way some proclaim the annihilation (ucchedaṃ),
  destruction (vināsaṃ) and extermination of an existent being
  (sattassa).</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Brahmajāla Sutta</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>~~~</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being, delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to
  them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or
  acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it.
  Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed and disgusted by this very same being (bhaveneva) and they rejoice in (the
  idea of) non-being (vibhavaṃ), asserting: ‘In as much as this self
  (attaṃ), good sirs, when the body perishes at death, is annihilated
  (ucchijjati) and destroyed (vinassati) and does not exist (na hoti)
  after death (parammaraṇā) — this is peaceful, this is excellent, this
  is reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Iti 49</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>~~~</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>What you, Kassapa, first called ‘suffering caused by oneself’ — this amounts to the eternalist theory (vadaṃ sassataṃ)….and ‘suffering
  caused by another’ — this amounts to the annihilationist theory (vadaṃ
  ucchedaṃ).</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Acela Sutta</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>~~~</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Don’t say that, friend Yamaka. Don’t misrepresent the Blessed One. It’s not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One
  would not say, ‘A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the
  body, is annihilated (ucchijjati), perishes (vinassati) &amp; does not
  exist (na hoti) after death (parammaraṇā).’</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
  break-up of the body, after death?</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Thus asked, I would answer, ‘Form is impermanent… Feeling… Perception… Fabrications… Consciousness is impermanent. That which is
  impermanent is unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory has ceased
  and gone to its end.’</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Yamaka Sutta</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>In summary, often unenlightened people (<em>puthujjana</em>) falsely accuse Noble (Enlightened) People of being 'heretics' &amp; 'nihilists', as also occurred to the Lord Buddha himself: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A
  nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the
  destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'</em></p>
  
  <p><em>"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A
  nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the
  destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.</em>'</p>
  
  <p><em>"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile</em></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-23T12:25:04.830Z
In summary, I think you're saying that: nihilism is a wrong view ...but what makes nihilism a wrong view isn't exactly the fact that it "denies rebirth", and especially, this sutta is not trying to teach that reincarnation-after-death is right view ... what makes nihilism a wrong view is that it denies kamma; and the other thing that makes it a wrong view is that nihilism is a view-about-self (every view-of-self including also eternalism is "wrong" because all such views lead to suffering).
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-23T02:57:05.063Z
2016-07-24T03:26:39.613Z
2016-07-24T03:26:39.613Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>Is the Nihilism view (<em>natthika-dithi</em>) actually denying rebirths?</p>

<p>In Fuller's <a href="http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/The%20Notion%20of%20Ditthi%20in%20Theravada%20Buddhism_Fuller.pdf" rel="noreferrer">The Notion of Diṭṭhi in Theravāda Buddhism: The Point of View</a>, in the translation of the Sāmaññaphala-sutta, <em>natthika-ditthi</em> is formulated like this:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Nothing is given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; there is 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
  themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the
  other world.</p>
  
  <p>The person is composed of the four great elements; when
  he dies, earth returns and goes back to the element of earth, water
  returns and goes back to the element of water, fire returns and goes
  back to the element of fire, wind returns and goes back to the element
  of wind, while the senses disappear into space. [Four] men with the
  bier as a fifth take up the corpse, the funeral orations last as far
  as the burning ground, his bones are a dull white, his offerings end
  in ashes. They are fools who teach alms-giving. The doctrine of
  affirmation (atthika-vāda) is empty and false banter. Fools and wise
  alike are destroyed and perish at the breaking up of the body, they do
  not exist after death.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The following statements are related to 'rebirth':</p>

<ol>
<li>Denying the "fruit or result of good and bad actions" -- which, except this-life fruit or results, are rebirth-related.</li>
<li>Denying "the other world" -- if it's not rebirth-related then it would be interesting to understand what "other world" is actually supposed to mean.</li>
<li>Saying "they do not exist after death" -- description of death as complete destruction (without rebirth).</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-23T22:18:23.080Z
@Dhammadhatu What is a point of down-voting this question?
catpnosis
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-24T03:22:31.457Z
About the question, the 2nd quote from the Samaññaphala Sutta is not a teaching of the Buddha but a teaching of Ajita Kesakambalin. The Buddha's view in the same sutta is: "With mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects...he discerns: 'This body...is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother and father...subject to impermanence...dissolution and dispersion...this consciousness...is supported here and bound up here.' Thus, here, the Buddha says again there is no independent consciousness.
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-24T04:08:41.080Z
FWIW the reason why King Ajatasattu said he was dissatisfied with the quoted answer from Ajita Kesakambalin, was that the king had asked him to point out  "a fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now": but the quote doesn't seem to answer that (doesn't mention a fruit visible in the here and now). I guess the reason why you are discussing this sutta here is that (e.g. in the Kaccaayanagotto Sutta) the Buddha says that nihilism (and eternalism) is an extreme and a wrong view: and this sutta gives a detailed description/example/definition of what the 'nihilistic view' is.
ChrisW
<theravada><rebirth>
Does the Nihilism view (natthika-dithi) actually deny rebirths?
# Does the Nihilism view (natthika-dithi) actually deny rebirths?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-07-22)

Is the Nihilism view (*natthika-dithi*) actually denying rebirths?

In Fuller's [The Notion of Diṭṭhi in Theravāda Buddhism: The Point of View](http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/The%20Notion%20of%20Ditthi%20in%20Theravada%20Buddhism_Fuller.pdf), in the translation of the Sāmaññaphala-sutta, *natthika-ditthi* is formulated like this:

> Nothing is given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; there is 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
> themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the
> other world.
>
> The person is composed of the four great elements; when
> he dies, earth returns and goes back to the element of earth, water
> returns and goes back to the element of water, fire returns and goes
> back to the element of fire, wind returns and goes back to the element
> of wind, while the senses disappear into space. [Four] men with the
> bier as a fifth take up the corpse, the funeral orations last as far
> as the burning ground, his bones are a dull white, his offerings end
> in ashes. They are fools who teach alms-giving. The doctrine of
> affirmation (atthika-vāda) is empty and false banter. Fools and wise
> alike are destroyed and perish at the breaking up of the body, they do
> not exist after death.

The following statements are related to 'rebirth':

1. Denying the "fruit or result of good and bad actions" -- which, except this-life fruit or results, are rebirth-related.
2. Denying "the other world" -- if it's not rebirth-related then it would be interesting to understand what "other world" is actually supposed to mean.
3. Saying "they do not exist after death" -- description of death as complete destruction (without rebirth).

**Tags:** theravada, rebirth

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: @Dhammadhatu What is a point of down-voting this question?  
> **username_1**: About the question, the 2nd quote from the Samaññaphala Sutta is not a teaching of the Buddha but a teaching of Ajita Kesakambalin. The Buddha's view in the same sutta is: "With mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects...he discerns: 'This body...is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother and father...subject to impermanence...dissolution and dispersion...this consciousness...is supported here and bound up here.' Thus, here, the Buddha says again there is no independent consciousness.  
> **username_2**: FWIW the reason why King Ajatasattu said he was dissatisfied with the quoted answer from Ajita Kesakambalin, was that the king had asked him to point out  "a fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now": but the quote doesn't seem to answer that (doesn't mention a fruit visible in the here and now). I guess the reason why you are discussing this sutta here is that (e.g. in the Kaccaayanagotto Sutta) the Buddha says that nihilism (and eternalism) is an extreme and a wrong view: and this sutta gives a detailed description/example/definition of what the 'nihilistic view' is.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-07-23. Score: 3

> **Nothing is given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; there is no
> fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other
> worlds; no mother, no father; no beings who are spontaneously born;
> no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have
> themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the
> other worlds.**

I have amended the translation above.

1. The word ['beings' ('satta')](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html)  is defined in the suttas as mental states of attachment & identity (rather than physical life forms). 'Satta' is merely a '[self-view](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html)' held by Mara.
2. The very fact that 'beings' are 'spontaneously' or 'immediately born' ('opapatika') due to acts of karma into the other worlds (heaven, hell, animal & ghost) show it is not related to after-death-reincarnation or a new physical birth, as explained below:

> *32. Sariputta, there are these four kinds of generation. What are the four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born
> generation and spontaneous generation (opapatika)*.
>
> *Maha-sihanada Sutta*

3. For example, the very moment the mind gets angry, it is spontaneously born as a 'hell-being'.
4. 'This world' ('loka') refers to the human world of good morals & conscience. The 'other worlds' ('paraloka') refer to the heavenly (bliss), hell (torment), animal (immoral, emotionally reactive & unreflective) and ghost (addiction) worlds. For example, MN 79 refers to the 'world of only pleasant feelings':

> Kiṃ panudāyi, atthi ekantasukho loko, atthi ākāravatī paṭipadā
> ekantasukhassa lokassa sacchikiriyāyā
>
> *Udayi, is there a world of only pleasantness? Is there a course of
> actions to realise that world of only pleasantness?*
>
> *Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of
> demerit abides in the first jhana: Overcoming thoughts and thought
> processs and the mind in one point internally appeased, without
> thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with
> equanimuity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too,
> abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in
> pleasantness with equanimity. Udayi, this is the course of actions,
> for realising the world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa
> lokassa).*

---

---

---

> **The person is composed of the four great elements; when he dies, earth returns and goes back to the element of earth, water returns and
> goes back to the element of water, fire returns and goes back to the
> element of fire, wind returns and goes back to the element of wind,
> while the senses disappear into space. [Four] men with the bier as a
> fifth take up the corpse, the funeral orations last as far as the
> burning ground, his bones are a dull white, his offerings end in
> ashes. They are fools who teach alms-giving. The doctrine of
> affirmation (atthika-vāda) is empty and false banter. Fools and wise
> alike are destroyed and perish at the breaking up of the body, they do
> not exist after death.**

This quote from the [Samaññaphala Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html) is not a teaching of the Buddha but a teaching of Ajita Kesakambalin. In many places (eg. MN 115, MN 62, etc) it is taught life is only composed of elements (dhatu), which accords with Emptiness (*sunnata*). That is why the Buddha's response to the doctrine of Ajita Kesakambalin is similar but different, as follows:

> *'This body...is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother and father...subject to
> impermanence...dissolution and dispersion...this consciousness...is
> supported here and bound up here.'*

There are two primary reasons why the doctrine of Ajita Kesakambalin (quoted) is 'nihilism'.

1. The quote denies the efficacy (consequences) of kamma (actions). Thus, Buddhists who believe in present-life kamma-vipaka are not nihilists.
2. The quote holds there is a 'person' or 'self' that ends at death. This is the precise definition of 'nihilism' found in the suttas. In other words, 'nihilism' is not the view of 'impermanence' but the view that a 'self' is impermanent. Thus, 'nihilism' is a wrong view because it is a 'self-view'. To quote:

> *Herein, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self (attā), good sir, has material form; it is
> composed of the four primary elements and originates from father and
> mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated (ucchijjati) and
> destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death,
> at this point the self (attā) is completely annihilated
> (samucchinno).’ In this way some proclaim the annihilation (ucchedaṃ),
> destruction (vināsaṃ) and extermination of an existent being
> (sattassa).*
>
> *Brahmajāla Sutta*

~~~

> *And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being, delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to
> them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or
> acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it.
> Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back.*
>
> *How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed and disgusted by this very same being (bhaveneva) and they rejoice in (the
> idea of) non-being (vibhavaṃ), asserting: ‘In as much as this self
> (attaṃ), good sirs, when the body perishes at death, is annihilated
> (ucchijjati) and destroyed (vinassati) and does not exist (na hoti)
> after death (parammaraṇā) — this is peaceful, this is excellent, this
> is reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.*
>
> *Iti 49*

~~~

> *What you, Kassapa, first called ‘suffering caused by oneself’ — this amounts to the eternalist theory (vadaṃ sassataṃ)….and ‘suffering
> caused by another’ — this amounts to the annihilationist theory (vadaṃ
> ucchedaṃ).*
>
> *Acela Sutta*

~~~

> *Don’t say that, friend Yamaka. Don’t misrepresent the Blessed One. It’s not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One
> would not say, ‘A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the
> body, is annihilated (ucchijjati), perishes (vinassati) & does not
> exist (na hoti) after death (parammaraṇā).’*
>
> *Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
> break-up of the body, after death?*
>
> *Thus asked, I would answer, ‘Form is impermanent… Feeling… Perception… Fabrications… Consciousness is impermanent. That which is
> impermanent is unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory has ceased
> and gone to its end.’*
>
> *Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.*
>
> *Yamaka Sutta*

In summary, often unenlightened people (*puthujjana*) falsely accuse Noble (Enlightened) People of being 'heretics' & 'nihilists', as also occurred to the Lord Buddha himself:

> *37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A
> nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the
> destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'*
>
> *"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A
> nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the
> destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.*'
>
> *"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.*
>
> *Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile*

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: In summary, I think you're saying that: nihilism is a wrong view ...but what makes nihilism a wrong view isn't exactly the fact that it "denies rebirth", and especially, this sutta is not trying to teach that reincarnation-after-death is right view ... what makes nihilism a wrong view is that it denies kamma; and the other thing that makes it a wrong view is that nihilism is a view-about-self (every view-of-self including also eternalism is "wrong" because all such views lead to suffering).  

---

