Can a sotāpanna committ suicide?

[User1249x]

No arahat committed suicide in Theravada.

maybe in your buddhagosa-theravada there isn't

“Friend Sāriputta, it is not that I lack suitable food; I have suitable food. It is not that I lack suitable medicine; I have suitable medicine. It is not that I lack proper attendants; I have proper attendants. Moreover, friend, for a long time the Teacher has been served by me in an agreeable way, not in a disagreeable way; for it is proper for a disciple to serve the Teacher in an agreeable way, not in a disagreeable way. Remember this, friend Sāriputta: the bhikkhu Channa will use the knife blamelessly.”
....
“Friend Sāriputta, it is because I have seen and directly known cessation in the eye, in eye-consciousness, and in things cognizable with eye-consciousness, that I regard them thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ It is because I have seen and directly known cessation in the ear … … in the mind, in mind-consciousness, and in things cognizable with mind-consciousness, that I regard them thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’”
...
Then, when the Venerable Sāriputta and the Venerable Mahacunda had given the Venerable Channa this exhortation, they rose from their seats and departed. Then, soon after they had left, the Venerable Channa used the knife.

Then the Venerable Sāriputta approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him: “Venerable sir, the Venerable Channa has used the knife. What is his destination, what is his future bourn?”

“Sāriputta, didn’t the bhikkhu Channa declare his blameless-ness right in your presence?”

“Venerable sir, there is a Vajjian village named Pubbavijjhana. There the Venerable Channa had friendly families, intimate families, hospitable families.”

“The Venerable Channa did indeed have these friendly families, Sāriputta, intimate families, hospitable families; but I do not say that to this extent one is blameworthy. Sāriputta, when one lays down this body and takes up another body, then I say one is blameworthy. This did not happen in the case of the bhikkhu Channa. The bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly. Thus, Sāriputta, should you remember it.”

and putthujhanas attain arahantship by killing themselves

[budo]

Suicide is not same as killing and this can be inferred from these discourses;
DN33: Arahants incapable of taking life
sn35.87: Arahant kills himself

Of a Sotapanna it is stated
Dhp story to the verse 124: "Bhikkhus, the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed."

If one is to be consistent with the definitions of what constitutes taking life in this Doctrine then it follows that suicide is not the same as killing another.

Hmm, interesting sutta. Could it be that Channa was a non-returner?

Why not just enter nirohda samapatti continuously until you die.

The Buddha was poisoned by mushrooms, he was able to die on command.

[pitakele]

I have found it myself:

Thank you. Did this also include the textual reference for the dukkata rule?

[robertk]

and putthujhanas attain arahantship by killing themselves

well yes, Godhika, vakkali and Channa were all putthujana and became arahat during the act of suicide.

[budo]

and putthujhanas attain arahantship by killing themselves

well yes, Godhika, vakkali and Channa were all putthujana and became arahat during the act of suicide.

This passage in SN35.87 sutta with Channa seems like they're advising him how to attain Arahantship, as he claimed prior to that passage that he had attained cessation. So I think he was a non-returner at best, before slitting his wrists.

"When he said this, Venerable Mahācunda said to Venerable Channa: “So, Reverend Channa, you should pay close attention to this instruction of the Buddha whenever you can: ‘For the dependent there is agitation. For the independent there’s no agitation. When there’s no agitation there is tranquility. When there’s tranquility there’s no inclination. When there’s no inclination, there’s no coming and going. When there’s no coming and coming, there’s no passing away and reappearing. When there’s no passing away and reappearing, there’s no this world or world beyond or in-between the two. Just this is the end of suffering.

And when the venerables Sāriputta and Mahācunda had given Venerable Channa this advice they got up from their seat and left. Not long after those venerables had left, Venerable Channa slit his wrists. "

[User1249x]

and putthujhanas attain arahantship by killing themselves

well yes, Godhika, vakkali and Channa were all putthujana and became arahat during the act of suicide.

i have absolutely no dog in this race and I have not researched all of those cases but as to what pertains to Channa in particular;
for the life of me i can not see the slightest bit of evidence for this being remotely possible or having any evidence.

Hmm, interesting sutta. Could it be that Channa was a non-returner?

Why not just enter nirohda samapatti continuously until you die.

The Buddha was poisoned by mushrooms, he was able to die on command.

If he was a non-returner he is still an Ariyan and as far as i can tell that is not a reasonable assumption because Ven. Channa himself declared that he would not be taking another body before using the knife and this declaration was affirmed by the Buddha. Having pure abodes as one's destination still counts as taking a body albeit a mind-made one, here is a discourse which i would use as evidence;

numbered discourses 5

17. resentment

166. Cessation
There Venerable Sāriputta addressed the mendicants: … “Reverends, take a mendicant who is accomplished in ethics, immersion, and wisdom. They might enter into and emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling. That is possible. If they don’t reach enlightenment in this very life, then, surpassing the company of gods that consume solid food, they’re reborn in a certain group of mind-made gods. There they might enter into and emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling. That is possible.”

When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him: “This is not possible, Reverend Sāriputta, it cannot happen!”

But for a second … and a third time Sāriputta repeated his statement.

And for a third time, Udāyī said to him: “This is not possible, Reverend Sāriputta, it cannot happen!”

Then Venerable Sāriputta thought: “Venerable Udāyī disagrees with me three times, and not one mendicant agrees with me. Why don’t I go to see the Buddha?” Then Sāriputta went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to the mendicants: “Reverends, take a mendicant who is accomplished in ethics, immersion, and wisdom. They might enter into and emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling. There is such a possibility. If they don’t reach enlightenment in this very life, they’re reborn in the company of a certain group of mind-made gods, who surpass the gods that consume solid food. There they might enter into and emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling. That is possible.”

When he said this, Udāyī said to him: “This is not possible, Reverend Sāriputta, it cannot happen!”

But for a second … and a third time Sāriputta repeated his statement.

And for a third time, Udāyī said to him: “This is not possible, Reverend Sāriputta, it cannot happen!”

Then Venerable Sāriputta thought: “Even in front of the Buddha Venerable Udāyī disagrees with me three times, and not one mendicant agrees with me. I’d better stay silent.” Then Sāriputta fell silent.

Then the Buddha said to Venerable Udāyī: “But Udāyī, do you believe in a mind-made body?” “Those gods, sir, who are formless, made of perception.” “Udāyī, what has an incompetent fool like you got to say? How on earth could you imagine you’ve got something worth saying!”

Then the Buddha said to Venerable Ānanda: “Ānanda! There’s a senior mendicant being harassed, and you just watch it happening. Don’t you have any compassion for a senior mendicant who is being harassed?”

Then the Buddha addressed the mendicants: “Mendicants, take a mendicant who is accomplished in ethics, immersion, and wisdom. They might enter into and emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling. That is possible. If they don’t reach enlightenment in this very life, they’re reborn in the company of a certain group of mind-made gods, who surpass the gods that consume solid food. There they might enter into and emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling. That is possible.” That is what the Buddha said. When he had spoken, the Holy One got up from his seat and entered his dwelling.

Therefore if Channa was a Non-Returner he would technically be wrong at the time of making the declaration because he would as a matter of fact be destined to be reborn with a mind-made body.

Remember this, friend Sāriputta: the bhikkhu Channa will use the knife blamelessly.”
“Sāriputta, didn’t the bhikkhu Channa declare his blameless-ness right in your presence?”
The bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly. Thus, Sāriputta, should you remember it

As a matter of fact I think that saying that Ven. Channa was delusional at the time when making the declaration is reviling an Arahant with worst accusations too.

slitting his wrists.

i always thought it was the jugular vein but i am not sure why i have this idea... seems like a better way to go to i guess

[budo]

Therefore if Channa was a Non-Returner he would technically be wrong at the time of making the declaration because he would as a matter of fact be destined to be reborn with a mind-made body.

Remember this, friend Sāriputta: the bhikkhu Channa will use the knife blamelessly.”
“Sāriputta, didn’t the bhikkhu Channa declare his blameless-ness right in your presence?”
The bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly. Thus, Sāriputta, should you remember it

The legacy version has a different text than the current version

"“Sāriputta, didn’t the mendicant Channa declare his blamelessness to you personally?”"

vs

"Remember this, friend Sāriputta: the bhikkhu Channa will use the knife blamelessly.”
“Sāriputta, didn’t the bhikkhu Channa declare his blameless-ness right in your presence?”

Maybe it's an issue of translation, and we need someone who is well versed in the pali to conclude the argument.

because Ven. Channa himself declared that he would not be taking another body before using the knife and this declaration was affirmed by the Buddha.

I also can't find in the text where Channa declares he will not be reborn.

[User1249x]

Therefore if Channa was a Non-Returner he would technically be wrong at the time of making the declaration because he would as a matter of fact be destined to be reborn with a mind-made body.

Remember this, friend Sāriputta: the bhikkhu Channa will use the knife blamelessly.”
“Sāriputta, didn’t the bhikkhu Channa declare his blameless-ness right in your presence?”
The bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly. Thus, Sāriputta, should you remember it

The legacy version has a different text than the current version

"“Sāriputta, didn’t the mendicant Channa declare his blamelessness to you personally?”"

vs

"Remember this, friend Sāriputta: the bhikkhu Channa will use the knife blamelessly.”
“Sāriputta, didn’t the bhikkhu Channa declare his blameless-ness right in your presence?”

Maybe it's an issue of translation, and we need someone who is well versed in the pali to conclude the argument.

I also can't find in the text where Channa declares he will not be reborn.

The translations do not matter, he declared that he would use the requisite blamelessly and Buddha affirmed the declaration and stated that he used it blamelessly and provided us with the meaning of Blamelessness in this context. Therefore when the Channa says "i will use the knife blamelessly" the meaning to be inferred is "I will use the knife and I will not be taking another body"

[budo]

Therefore when the Channa says "i will use the knife blamelessly" the meaning to be inferred is "I will use the knife and I will not be taking another body"

I'm not clear in understanding this statement.

Are you saying "taking another body" as in killing another body, or as in being reborn?

In the case of being reborn, you need to look deeper and eliminate the possibility that blamelessness is specifically associated with arahantship and not prior attainments. For example in this sutta does Blamelessness simply refer to Samma Sila, which is enough for a stream entrant, or more? https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

I'm not saying you're wrong btw, I'm saying there needs to be further clarification.

[budo]

[name redacted by admin] is probably right unless there is more evidence, but eitherway, it is clear noble ones can commit suicide in very specific circumstances, so that should answer OP's question about sotapannas.

[User1249x]

Are you saying "taking another body" as in killing another body, or as in being reborn?

reborn

In the case of being reborn, you need to look deeper and eliminate the possibility that blamelessness is specifically associated with arahantship and not prior attainments. For example in this sutta does Blamelessness simply refer to Samma Sila, which is enough for a stream entrant, or more? https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

I'm not saying you're wrong btw, I'm saying there needs to be further clarification.

as i already demonstrated the natural assumption is that the Blamelessness refers to taking another body and that "a body" would include all types of bodies unless otherwise specified.

Now it is possible that one would say that Body does not include mind-made bodies but because this is not a natural assumption*
*It is not a natural assumption because if one says An animal is a living being, it is not a natural assumption to assume that a particular type of animal is not a living being.
This claim needs to be supported by evidence and the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim, without evidence the claim can be dismissed.

If one was to look for evidence as far as i can tell one would not be able to make a case without committing a fallacy of some sort.

[budo]

Are you saying "taking another body" as in killing another body, or as in being reborn?

reborn

In the case of being reborn, you need to look deeper and eliminate the possibility that blamelessness is specifically associated with arahantship and not prior attainments. For example in this sutta does Blamelessness simply refer to Samma Sila, which is enough for a stream entrant, or more? https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

I'm not saying you're wrong btw, I'm saying there needs to be further clarification.

as i already demonstrated the natural assumption is that the Blamelessness refers to taking another body and that "a body" would include all types of bodies unless otherwise specified.

Now it is possible that one would say that Body does not include mind-made bodies but because this is not a natural assumption*
*It is not a natural assumption because if one says An animal is a living being, it is not a natural assumption to assume that a particular animal is not a living being.
This claim needs to be supported by evidence and the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim, without evidence the claim can be dismissed.

If one was to look for evidence as far as i can tell one would not be able to do without committing a fallacy of some sort.

The only argument I would have via mind made bodies, is that from my understanding and memory of readings, is that Devas do not feel pain or aging until they're right about to die, they start to sweat and look ugly and other devas will make comments and then the dying deva will go out alone somewhere.

The argument being that if Chenna was reborn as a deva, he wouldn't have the same problems that an earth-water based body would have (implying that devas have very little or no water-earth elements in their bodies).

But yeah, it's a bit of a stretch.

[Volo]

Thank you. Did this also include the textual reference for the dukkata rule?

I think it is Bu-Pj.3.5.13 MS.481, in Parajika 2. But dukkata for suicide attempt is according to the Commentary. Buddha simply says: “There is no offence entailing expulsion. But, monks, one should not jump off. If one does, there is an offence of bad conduct.” Also dukkata is for the attempt (unsuccessful), but not for an actual suicide. But yes: suicide doesn't count as killing according to Vinaya (otherwise the Buddha would say the monk commited thullacaya).

[robertk]

In the case of Godhika ( see commentary by bikkhu bodhi)he attained arahant as a jiivitasamasiisii, one who attains the goal and the end of life at same time. ( same as with channa and vakkali I think).

so apparently he slit his throat, felt aversion to the pain or fear, and used those objects to develop vipassana and go through path and fruits and vipassana knowledges in the time before bleeding to death .

[budo]

In the case of Godhika ( see commentary by bikkhu bodhi) attained arahant as a jiivitasamasiisii, one who attains the goal and the end of like at same time. ( same as with channa and vakkali I think).

so apparently he slit his throat, felt aversion to the pain or fear, and used those objects to develop vipassana and go through path and fruits and vipassana knowledges in the time before bleeding to death .

B. Sujato's translation uses wrists, whereas B. Bodhi's doesn't mention the body part, in both Channa's and Godhika's suttas.

Still the main point of contention is that blameless = arahant.