Материализм менее вреден, чем вера в вечную душу

In the Wou chang yi king, T 669, k. 1, p. 471b8-10, the Buddha says to Ānanda: ”He who
produces the view of emptiness (śūnyatādṛṣṭi), I declare him to be incurable (acikitsya). If a person is
attached to a view of the self (pudgaladṛṣṭi) as high as Sumeru, I am not surprised by that and I do not
condemn him. But if a fool (abhimānika) is attached to a view of emptiness (śūnyatādṛṣṭi) as minute as
the sixtieth part of a single hair, that I cannot allow.”

Transl. – It is not by means of emptiness that dharmas are made to be empty, but dharmas are
by themselves empty. It is not by means of signlessness that dharmas are made to be without
characteristics, but dharmas are by themselves without characteristics. It is not by means of wishlessness
that dharmas are made to be not taken into consideration, but dharmas by themselves are not to be taken
into consideration. That very consideration, O Kāśyapa, is called the Middle Way, the real consideration
of dharmas. Indeed, O Kāśyapa, those who, by grasping an emptiness, take refuge in emptiness, I declare
them to be completely lost for my teaching. Moreover, O Kāśyapa, a view of the self as high as Sumeru
is worth more than a view of emptiness in those who adhere to it wrongly. Why? Emptiness, O Kaśyapa,
is the way to escape from all kinds of false views; on the other hand, the person who has this very
emptiness as a belief, I declare him to be incurable. Suppose, O Kaśyapa, there is a sick man and a
physician gives him medicine, but this medicine, after having eliminated all the guilty humors of this
illness, penetrates into his belly and does not come out. What do you think, O Kāśyapa; will this man be
freed of his illness? – Certainly not, O Blessed One; his sickness will become greater if this medicine,
having eliminated all the guilty humors, should penetrate into his belly and not come out. – The Blessed
One said: In the same way, O Kaśyapa, emptiness is the means of escaping from all the wrong views; on
the other hand, the person who holds this very emptiness as a belief, I declare him to be incurable.

Transl. – “It is with this intention that the Bhagavat said: ‘The view of the self in an absolute
individualist is better than emptiness wrongly understood in an absolute nihilist [in this case, a
Mādhyamika]. Why? A person who believes in the self is mistaken only on [the nature of] the knowable,
but does not deny the [existence] of the knowable. This is why he will not be reborn in the bad destinies;
he does not criticize and does not deceive his neighbor, the believer, who is seeking to free himself from
suffering, but to establish him [on the other hand] in the Dharma and the Truth; furthermore, he does not
slacken in observing the rules. On the contrary, by means of emptiness completely misunderstood, the
person is mistaken about the reality of the knowable and even rejects it entirely. This is why he will be
reborn in the bad destinies; he destroys his neighbor, the believer, who is seeking to free himself from
suffering and, further, he slackens in his observation of the rules. By rejecting reality as it is, he separates
himself from our teachings.”

О совершенно разном идет речь и о разной вредности - тут вредной называется в основном пропаганда для других людей. А там речь шла о меньшей вредности, как анатмавадном воззрении, в том случае, если из него не делаются вредные выводы, и последователь является нравственным (то есть, не совершается неблагое). Неразличать контексты = не понимать смысла.

Не помню откуда цитата, но смысл помню довольно точно:
Почему считать, что полное прекращение наступает сразу после смерти тела лучше, чем придерживаться учения о вечной душе, при условии, что последователь является нравственным? Потому, что не развивается привязанность (и т.п.).

У нравственного атеиста более верное воззрение, чем у теиста, привязанного к вечной душе и мечтающего о райском бытии.

     The view of nihilism (natthika-diṭṭhi)

     The view of nihilism is the following:

     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.12

     The view of nihilism claims that the person is composed of the ‘four great elements’, hence there is no self. Morality has no value.23 The view that ‘actions have consequences’ (the right-view of affirmation) is denied because this law cannot be known by ‘perception’. It cannot be known by any ‘valid means of knowledge’ (Skt. pramāṇa), hence it does not exist. It is generally held that this type of thinking ref lects the views of the Lokāyata/Cārvāka schools, or so-called ‘Indian Materialism’,24 and there are Lokāyata doctrines which may be compared to the view of nihilism. For example, the doctrine of yadṛcchā-vāda denies cause and effect and proposes that all relationships are an accident. The Lokāyata doctrine of svabhāva-vāda holds that things operate without a cause, and change according to their ‘own nature’. Similarly, Tucci argues the following:

     This svabhāva-vāda [posits] the negation of the karma theory […] it maintains that everything which happens on earth is only the effect of various combinations of material elements; human effort is useless […] everything happens svabhāvena, according to the various combinations of the four elements which constitute the body of everything.25

     The ‘annihilationist-view’ (uccheda-diṭṭhi), which holds that the self and the world will cease (ucchijjissati attā ca loko cā ti, ibid.).

     The commentarial interpretation on the negative uccheda-diṭṭhi at S III 99 is the following:

     If I were not, it would not be for me means (ti): If I were not (sace ahaṃ na bhaveyyaṃ), neither would there be my belongings (mama patikkhāro). Or else: If in my past there had not been kammic formation (kammābhi saṃkhāro), now there would not be for me these five aggregates.
     I will not be (and) it will not be for me means (ti): I will now so strive that there will not be any kammic formation of mine producing the aggregates in the future. When that is absent, there will be for me no future rebirth.61

     The annihilationist-view identifies with, and is attached to, the five khandhas.

     The Paṭisambhidāmagga classifies sakkāya-diṭṭhi into two groups. To regard any of the khandhas as self is an uccheda-diṭṭhi. So there are five uccheda-diṭṭhi. To regard the self as possessed of any of the khandhas, or the khandhas as in self, or self as in the khandhas, are sassata-diṭṭhi. So there are fifteen sassata-diṭṭhi.70

     The Nettippakaraṇa uses the uccheda and sassata-diṭṭhi classifications to suggest that uccheda-diṭṭhi are based upon some form of delusion (moha), while sassatadiṭṭhi are based upon a form of craving (taṇhā).

     The view of bhikkhu Yamaka:
     

Now on that occasion a destructive view had arisen in bhikkhu Yamaka: ‘Thus do I understand the dhamma taught by the Fortunate One: In so far as a bhikkhu has destroyed the corruptions (āsavas), he is broken up and dies when the body is broken up, he becomes not after death.’88

     The view of Yamaka posits a notion of a ‘being’ which is destroyed upon reaching nibbāna. This should be understood as an annihilationist-view (uccheda-diṭṭhi).

Нигилизм, о котором говорил Будда, это учение "отрицателей" - отрицавших загробное бытие с будущими жизнями.
Какое именно "отвращение", к чему? И какое именно "неведение" может развиться?

не "блокирует пассивность", а наоборот - может ее спровоцировать.

Я утверждаю, что из мирских двух воззрений, нравственный атеизм менее вреден, чем вера в вечную душу и ее вечное бытие.

Что это за нравственный атеизм и на чем он основан? Можно примеры привести?

А нравственная вера в вечную душу и ее вечное бытие почему вреднее?