Saṃyutta Nikāya · Discourse 24.5

There’s No Meaning in Giving

Natthidinnasutta — Sotāpattivagga

Setting
Sāvatthī
Speakers
The Buddha addressing the mendicants
Form
A lengthy nihilist manifesto quoted at length, then diagnosed by the same aggregate catechism as every other view in this vagga
Length
~3 minutes to read
Northern parallel
A rough counterpart may exist in the Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama (T99), though this reading guide does not assert a specific matching sutra number
Difficulty
★★☆☆☆ — the view itself is vivid and disturbing, though the diagnostic that follows is by now familiar

Why this discourse

The first of four consecutive discourses (SN 24.5–8) examining doctrine closely matching views the Sāmaññaphala Sutta (DN 2) attributes by name to specific teachers active during the Buddha's own lifetime. This discourse's view — that giving, sacrifice, karma, and the afterlife are all meaningless, and death is simple annihilation — closely tracks the doctrine DN 2 attributes to Ajita Kesakambalī. Whatever the precise historical relationship between the two texts, the content overlap is close enough to be worth naming.

Reading guide

A manifesto, quoted at unusual length

"There's no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There's no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There's no afterlife..." — this vagga's longest single view statement so far, running through denial of moral causation, denial of parents and spontaneous rebirth, and denial that any ascetic or brahmin has ever truly realized the afterlife through insight.

The body reduced to its elements, then discarded

The view continues into a vivid materialist account of death: the four elements in the body simply disperse back into their respective substances, the faculties "transferred to space," four pallbearers carry the corpse to the cremation ground, and "offerings dedicated to the gods end in ashes" — giving itself declared "a doctrine of morons," and any positive teaching dismissed as "baseless, false nonsense."

"Both the foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and don't exist after death" — annihilationism (ucchedavāda) in its starkest canonical form.

A view closely tracking Ajita Kesakambalī's doctrine

The Sāmaññaphala Sutta (DN 2) attributes near-identical language to Ajita Kesakambalī, one of six teachers King Ajātasattu consults about the fruits of the ascetic life — the same denial of giving's meaning, the same four-element dissolution, the same closing line about fools and the astute alike being annihilated. This reading guide does not assert a precise textual relationship between the two passages, only that the content overlap is unmistakable.

The identical diagnostic, applied to the most extreme case

Despite the view's length and vividness, the diagnostic that follows is unchanged: the view is shown to arise from grasping the aggregates, each aggregate shown impermanent, and a noble disciple who gives up doubt on these grounds and the four truths declared a stream-enterer — the same machinery applied to views as different as "winds don't blow" and total moral nihilism.

Key terms

natthi dinne natthi yiṭṭhe — "there's no meaning in giving, no meaning in sacrifice" — this discourse's opening denial
ucchedavāda — annihilationism — the technical term for the view that death is simple, total cessation, exemplified here
bāladhammo — "a doctrine of morons" — the view's own contemptuous dismissal of giving
Ajita Kesakambalī — a teacher whose doctrine, as reported in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta (DN 2), closely tracks this discourse's view
upādāya... abhinivissa — grasping... and insisting on — this vagga's standing two-condition formula, applied here to the most extreme view yet examined

The text

The complete discourse: the nihilist manifesto in full, then the aggregate catechism and stream-enterer conclusion. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

§1At Sāvatthī. “Mendicants, when what exists, because of grasping what and insisting on what, does the view arise: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There’s no such thing as mother and father, or beings that are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is rightly comported and rightly practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight. This person is made up of the four principal states. When they die, the earth in their body progresses and proceeds to the substance of earth. The water in their body progresses and proceeds to the substance of water. The fire in their body progresses and proceeds to the substance of fire. The air in their body progresses and proceeds to the substance of air. The faculties are transferred to space. Four men with a bier carry away the corpse. Their footprints show the way to the cremation ground. The bones become bleached. Offerings dedicated to the gods end in ashes. Giving is a doctrine of morons. When anyone affirms a positive teaching it’s just baseless, false nonsense. Both the foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and don’t exist after death’?” “Our teachings are rooted in the Buddha. …”

§2“When form exists, because of grasping form and insisting on form, the view arises: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. … Both the foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and don’t exist after death.’ When feeling … perception … choices … consciousness exists, because of grasping consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. … Both the foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and don’t exist after death.’ What do you think, mendicants? Is form permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” … “Is feeling … perception … choices … consciousness permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” … “That which is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, and explored by the mind: is that permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” … “But by not grasping what’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, would such a view arise?” “No, sir.”

§3“When a noble disciple has given up doubt regarding these six grounds, and has given up doubt in suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation, they’re called a noble disciple who is a stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, assured, destined for awakening.”

· · ·

Self-check quiz

Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.

Question 1 of 10
What does this discourse's view deny?
Correct: A. This vagga's longest and most extreme view statement so far.
Question 2 of 10
What happens to the body according to this view?
Correct: A. A materialist account of death as simple physical dissolution.
Question 3 of 10
What technical term names this view's position on death?
Correct: A. Death as simple, total cessation for both the foolish and the astute alike.
Question 4 of 10
Which teacher named in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta (DN 2) is associated with closely similar doctrine?
Correct: A. One of six teachers King Ajātasattu consults in that discourse.
Question 5 of 10
How does this discourse's view characterize giving?
Correct: A. Any positive teaching is dismissed in the same breath as "baseless, false nonsense."
Question 6 of 10
What happens to the diagnostic that follows, despite this view's unusual length and vividness?
Correct: A. The identical machinery applied to views as different as "winds don't blow" and total nihilism.
Question 7 of 10
Where is this discourse set?
Correct: A. Matching the setting of most of this book's discourses.
Question 8 of 10
What happens to offerings dedicated to the gods, according to this view?
Correct: A. Part of the view's vivid materialist account of death and ritual.
Question 9 of 10
How many consecutive discourses in this vagga examine doctrine tracking DN 2's named teachers?
Correct: A. This discourse opens that four-discourse run.
Question 10 of 10
What does this discourse's conclusion certify, as with the views before it?
Correct: A. This vagga's standing stream-enterer formula, unchanged regardless of the view examined.
Answered 0 of 10 · Correct 0