Bhante Jag - Euthanasia

[mikenz66]

For some discussion on pāṇātipāta (note the spelling) see
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ata#p65940
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ta#p140864
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ta#p102195


Mike

[SarathW]

Bhikkhu Samhita talk about euthanasia.
He discus in details the relevant Sutta and gives a detailed reason why we should not commit suicide.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDJipQXMto

[form]

The question is in your opinion all those Arahants (appears to be) were Panna Vimukti?

I discussed this with an Arahant and according to his clarification all of these arahants are Panna Vimukti. And aslo I didn't find any sutta that mention supper Jhana of above arahants.

There is still arahant living in this world? Who is that?

[SarathW]

A judge’s sentencing of a 20-year-old Massachusetts woman who urged her boyfriend via text to carry out his suicide may have showed leniency but should not have happened at all, legal experts told USA TODAY.


Juvenile Court Judge Lawrence Moniz sentenced Michelle Carter to 2 ½ years in prison on a charge of involuntary manslaughter Thursday, but Carter will only serve 15 months of that. She was convicted in June in the 2014 suicide of her boyfriend, Conrad Roy III, who died of carbon monoxide poisoning in his truck with Carter’s encouragement via text messaging.


http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/sui ... ocid=ientp

[SarathW]

The Sutta support that Arahant or even Anagami can attain Cessation of Perception and feeling.

See No 6 Nirdhasuttam


>Here, friends a bhikkhu endowed with virtues, concentration and wisdom, if he abides attaining to and rising from the cessation of perceptions and feelings, he here and now realizes worthiness, or else is born a mental being with the gods who have gone beyond partaking material food and abides attaining to and rising from the cessation of perceptions and feelings>


http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2S ... ggo-e.html

[SarathW]

Good video.

[User1249x]

Arahant even tho indifferent in sense that no aversion or liking to painful&pleasant sensations, he clearly discerns existence itself as lesser to ultimate peace and therefore it is completely reasonable to end it especially if body is no good for nothing anymore and if they dont teach...

Sotapanna can clearly break the Five Precepts on account of influence of another and or the remaining defilements, further he understands how Precepts work and why they are precepts without much ingnorance about their nature and the function they serve. Influence of another is and can be very powerful, one can be solicited, blackmailed and threatened. Average person can kill mother to save rest of family...

Which he would break and under which circumstance is a rediculous discussion i do not want to indulge that, but it can happen it is not impossible.

If people want i have a sad theory(fact rather) about how "Sotapanna not being able to break 5 precepts" opens a nasty angle to be exploited for Monks and how it is an evil view in general, how it has no place in a comperhensive understanding of the Dhamma and a misperception/view which can even be held by Ariya.

[Dhammarakkhito]

lot of things i disagree with

[User1249x]

lot of things i disagree with

My post? it is a very controversial topic as it defines "Behavior Fundamental to Holy Life"
However it is not controversial because of theory, it is controversial because of Politics, tradition and invested interest.

If there was ever scheduled a serious debate with People who say that "Sotapanna cannot 5 break precepts" for 2 rounds with People who say that "Sotapanna cannot break 5 precepts" Openening, they would surely have to forfeit.

You can try if you want in a friendly format 1v1, 2v2 or 3v3, 2 or 3 rounds, u choose who first.
If we go first and you are forced to adress all points you will have to forfeit imho.

I don't mean this as a challenge rather to explain what i think about that position and so i say how i think a debate would go and why it never takes place.

If it was obvious prominent monks would not be writing unchallenged criticisms of it.

People hardly get away with forming a wrong sentence on a forum even.

So if it is not clear then it is a view that they hold, had it been clear there would be no discussion and they would easily refure any attack as a true position does. This is basically why there is no discussion, because it is obvious that the position is undefendable and it is a view. There are many monks who dont hold that view nowadays too i am not sure how many do but it is not 90% more like 50/50 i guess but i would not know.

were some mistakes in op, tired already

[Dhammarakkhito]

nope, the original post

[dylanj]

Blameless means that they do not have another life. (Can someone give me Sutta support for this?)

Sāriputta, when one lays down this body and takes up another body, then I say one is blameworthy.

SN 35.87

[dylanj]

oh this is old you probably got an answer somewhere

[Dhammarakkhito]

i'm listening now this sounds foolish to me. there is simply no proof that any of the monks were arahants who killed themselves. only that they attempted suicide and entered parinibbāna. the monk is agenda driven. being a violation of the pañcasīla or not is not the only argument one can put forth. attempting suicide implies craving for non-existence. abandoning vitality fabrications is not the same, pain simply doesn't invade the arahant's mind. experiencing pain isn't an ignoble austerity in itself because it isn't volitional. from plain wording though it does seem that suicide is a violation of pancasila because it is taking the life of a living being. dabba sutta looks radically different, the arahant doesn't claim to be suffering, doesn't try to self-annihilate (no conceit) and simply burns up in the air.

“Let the venerable Channa not use the knife. Let the venerable Channa live. We want the venerable Channa to live. If he lacks suitable food, I will go in search of suitable food for him. If he lacks suitable medicine, I will go in search of suitable medicine for him. If he lacks a proper attendant, I will attend on him. Let the venerable Channa not use the knife. Let the venerable Channa live. We want the venerable Channa to live.”
http://www.yellowrobe.com/component/con ... hanna.html
let that serve as ideal disposition to suicide

[Dhammarakkhito]

first few pages here; would like a suitable refutation, if any, to show that anything less is required for sotāpanna.

[User1249x]

attempting suicide implies craving for non-existence.

There is a difference between aversion to existence and craving for non-existence.
Another example idk if you are familiar;

Daughter of Anathapindika who himself was a Sotapanna, stopped eating because she could not find a husband, she was a Sakidagami. Reborn in Tusita Heaven.

Also in Regards to Suttas in the Video it is not a rational assumption to assume that Canna lied to Sariputta when he said it was Blameless!
That is the commentary position. It can be assumed by all means, it is a free world but it is not the most apparently obvious interpretation of the text, that can be proven by logic. Even more so Sariputta himself was questioning him on attainment of Arahantship! Second in wisdom to Tathagata!

For rest, if you want a refutation from me you have to take a position and make a thread. You will find most answers here;
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=29507&start=140 I posted as [name redacted by admin]

you can look how that ended if u don't want to read the whole thing, i also made mistakes in OP. I would like to redo it by all means with me being challenged formally. I don't think i have to defend my position on this forum again as long as not officially challenged or presented with points previously not adressed. It would also be good if opposition answers all questions next time, not 1/4 or so.

Id like to destroy that evil view so you got my attention.

the monk is agenda driven.

what is the motive?