Why did the Lord Buddha criticize natthikavādaṃ (moral nihilism)?

The write-up “There’s No Meaning in Giving” by Bhikku Sujato, is still at a draft stage as its proofreading is not complete. But it is in keeping with ‘The Connected Discourses of the Buddha’ 24-5 (There Is Not), of the Book of Aggregates (Khandhavagga).

It talks primarily of the third kind of ‘Tanha’ that exists, namely the vibhava tanhā. Tanhā is “getting attached to things in this world”. Due to greed, hate, and ignorance, Kāma tanhā, bhava tanhā, and vibhava tanhā arises. It is because of the ignorance that we are grasping things and insisting on things, in thinking that they can provide lasting happiness. This attachment first manifests in greed. But when someone or something gets in the way, we generate hate.

Vibhava tanhā arises from the wrong view that there’s no afterlife. One believes that at death one ceases to exist, i.e., one believes that the mind is a by-product of the body (brain), and thus when the body dies, that is the end of story.

Many immoral acts are done with natthikavādaṃ (nihilism) because one believes that everything in this world is for one’s enjoyment, and all ends with this life. The logic is that If this birth is the one and the last, there is no need for giving, sacrifice or offerings, as there’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds.

This type of tanhā is removed as one progresses on the Path and at Stream Entry. Vibhava tanhā is removed at Sōtapanna stage, since only someone with micca ditthi can have vibhava tanhā. At Stream Entry one sees the truth in the rebirth process.

Tanhā arise due to asāva: One gets “attached” because one has deeply- embedded cravings. In this instance it is due to vibhavāsava. Vibhavāsava is split in to two: ditthāsava (ditthi asāva) and avijjāsava (avijja āsava). This is because vibhavāsava arises due to wrong views and ignorance. Āsava are “mental fermentations” that lie deep down in us. That can be compared to mud sitting at the bottom of a glass of water. “Asava” are the things we have liked for long, long times through uncountable lives in the samsāra or the rebirth process. They are the deep-seated cravings we have for certain things. .

Getting attached to things in this world due to greed, hate, and ignorance, lessen gradually with the deeper understanding of the message of the Buddha. This means ridding oneself of the three bonds that tie one down to this plane. Namely Raga, Dvesha and moha (greed, hate, and ignorance). The only way to do this is by eradicating Tanha (Kāma tanhā, bhava tanhā, vibhava tanhā). Ditthāsava is the craving or attachment to certain views. This is why sometimes it is hard to accept or even consider other views. This is why Buddha criticized natthikavādaṃ (nihilism).

The views presented above belong to the ancient Indian materialist Ajita Kesakambalin of the Charvaka or Lokayata school. Ajita Kesakambalin is introduced in the Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life.

The Buddha criticized the materialist world view for many reasons including its amoral (at best) or immoral (at worst) consequences. In contradistinction he taught the Dharma to dissuade those who would harm themselves and others believing that with the breakup of the body at death one could escape the consequences of negative actions in this very life. The Buddha explicitly criticized and put his own teachings in contradistinction to this by teaching the truth of rebirth and that one cannot escape the negative fruit of ones actions with the breakup of the body at death. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu skillfully cites in The Truth of Rebirth:

[The Buddha then cites similar cases where some people are rewarded for stealing, engaging in illicit sex, and lying, whereas other people are punished.]

"Now, what do you think, headman: Have you ever seen or heard of such a case?"

"I have seen this, lord, have heard of it, and will hear of it [again in the future]."

"So, headman, when those contemplatives & brahmans who hold a doctrine & view like this say: 'All those who kill living beings [etc.] experience pain & distress in the here-&-now,' do they speak truthfully or falsely?"

"Falsely, lord."

"And those who babble empty falsehood: Are they moral or immoral?"

"Immoral, lord."

"And those who are immoral and of evil character: Are they practicing wrongly or rightly?"

"Wrongly, lord."

"And those who are practicing wrongly: Do they hold wrong view or right view?"

"Wrong view, lord."

"And is it proper to place confidence in those who hold wrong view?"

"No, lord."

— SN 42.13

The true meaning of life is helping others achieve freedom from suffering.I think that somebody can't undergo all the hardships of the right path without having a full compassionate heart.

I understood all phenomena of life’s round and transcendence to be interdependent. I further ascertained that the underlying basis of mind is free from biases. Life’s round is the result of the path conditioned by wrong views. Transcendence is the result of the path conditioned by insight. The essence of both is emptiness and luminosity.

The Buddhist notion of emptiness is often misunderstood as nihilism. Nihilism and the teaching of emptiness can be said to have in common is a skeptical outset. Nihilism concludes that reality is unknowable, that nothing exists, that nothing meaningful can be communicated about the world. The Buddhist notion of emptiness is just the opposite. It states that the ultimate reality is knowable, there is a clear-cut ontological basis for phenomena and we can communicate and derive useful knowledge from it about the world.

This concept of emptiness may easily lead to the negative thought of nihilism. Mahayana Buddhism takes us back out of this extremist concept of emptiness to the middle way.This middle way still commits to the idea that “life is emptiness”; however emptiness here is not different from existence--emptiness is existence, existence is emptiness. This middle way definitely takes away any inkling of nihilist negativism. It is realistic and positive about life.[1]

The very purpose of fertile soil is to cultivate seeds into a fully manifest, healthy plant. Thus the development of our innate compassion is intimately and interdependently linked to the fertile soil-17 Karmapa

It appears the Lord Buddha criticized natthikavādaṃ (moral nihilism) because it is doctrine based on grasping (upadana). In other words, the Lord Buddha appeared to not criticize natthikavādaṃ because of disbelief in an afterlife.

There is a related sutta, SN44.6 that says:

"For one who loves form (and the rest of the five aggregates), who is fond of form, who cherishes form, who does not know or see, as it actually is present, the cessation of form, there occurs the thought, 'The Tathagata exists after death' or 'The Tathagata does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.'

"But for one who doesn't love form (and the rest of the five aggregates), who isn't fond of form, who doesn't cherish form, who knows & sees, as it actually is present, the cessation of form, the thought, 'The Tathagata exists after death' or 'The Tathagata does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' doesn't occur.

"For one who loves becoming, who is fond of becoming, ...

"But for one who doesn't love becoming, who isn't fond of becoming ...

"For one who loves clinging/sustenance ...

"But for one who doesn't love clinging/sustenance ...

"For one who loves craving ...

"But for one who doesn't love craving ...

I have heard another story about a master saying "think about monkeys", and the meditator thinks about monkeys with his eyes closed. After this, the master says "don't think about monkeys", and again, the meditator never fails to think about monkeys with his eyes closed. Why? Because in both cases, he has an obsession with monkeys.

Similarly, views about whether 'The Tathagata exists after death' or 'The Tathagata does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' all occur only if one has an obsession with the five aggregates, becoming, craving and clinging.

Similarly, having views about whether one (the self) 'exists after death' or 'does not exist after death' or 'both exists and does not exist after death' or 'neither exists nor does not exist after death' are all due to obsession with the five aggregates, becoming, craving and clinging.

The Acela Sutta shows that the Buddha teaches the Right View using dependent origination, rather than eternalism or annihilationism. (This comes from here but the full text can be found here):

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither, the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it): being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)" (S. XII, 17/vol. ii, 20).

The Yamaka Sutta also speaks of an interesting notion:

"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 inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end."

"Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.

So, rather than saying that after Parinibbana, the Buddha exists or does not exist, it's better to say suffering has ceased and gone to its end.

In a similar way, rather than saying that after death, whether an unenlightened person is non-existent or existent or reborn or not reborn, it's better to say that suffering has not ceased. And what happens when suffering has not ceased, is understood using dependent origination.

Why did the Buddha criticize natthika (moral nihilism)?

Well, it is wrong on many levels:

1. objectively, moral nihilism leads to careless behavior, which often leads to conflict and suffering.
2. subjectively, adhering to good morals is a nice rule of thumb for reducing mental afflictions - while moral nihilism would give free reign to the blinding passions.
3. Right Dharma by its very nature has to be based on reality of how things work - and being based on how things work means its principles can be observed throughout a wide range of human activities - which is why worldly ethics and Buddhism go along 90% of the way. Moral nihilism goes contrary to worldly ethics, which means it's not in accord with how things work.
4. the entire Buddhist path is based on the idea that some states of existence are "better" (more peaceful) then others, Nirvana being "the best", with better behavior leading to better states, and better views leading to better behavior. Dharma is that "better view". To claim that moral nihilism is the right teaching would imply that moral nihilism is a better view, which is logically inconsistent, since from the standpoint of moral nihilism there cannot be such thing as "better view".
5. our ideas and results of our actions continue to exist after our death. So whatever we do has influence beyond this life, just like we have inherited actions of previous generations. Moral nihilism denies this factor, this denial being obviously false.

How is this reconciled with the highest (Mahayana's) teaching of emptiness? Emptiness, or groundlessness as it is sometimes called, does NOT mean there is no good & bad. It does NOT mean there's no skillful & unskillful behavior. It means good/bad and skillful/unskillful cannot be simply generalized and reified. This is known even from the modern ethics with its infamous trolley problem. Good & bad is not something you can decide once-and-for-all and always go by the same rule. Same goes for skillful/unskillful. If being wise and skillful were as simple as learning a rule of thumb, everyone would be a buddha by now.

It also involves clear understanding that, in any kind of dispute, to be too attached to one position as "the only good" - is not good, because it leads to trouble. Attachment to reified morals, aversion based on that attachment, and conflict it generates - is not the most skillful approach. It is better than having no clue, sure - but not as good as seeing the situation from all perspectives at once.

So from Mahayana perspective, moral categories are not tangible, they cannot be grasped. Morals and wisdom is a skill one has to master, and the more someone masters it, the more nuanced and less stereotyped it gets, until it's almost like it has no definite shape - and yet you can see it working with clarity.

At the very end of this progression of mastery is what Mahayana calls groundlessness or positionlessness of a great master. Nothing can be further away from the moral nihilism.