Can a sotāpanna committ suicide?

[User1249x]

as i see it i am not at all surprised that they kill themselves in certain circusmstances.

As for the Arahant;

they have done all that was supposed to be done, are fully disinterested in and absolutely discern as it actually is all conditioned existence as sankhara-dukkhata.

Id think they only stick around to teach others in general and maintaining the sasana

on top of it if they are experiencing relentless painful feelings dukkha-dukkhata that makes teaching difficult

if on top of it they are high maintenance to others and there are other arahants around to teach

why would they not just blamelessly end it right there

As for their younger Ariyan siblings;

Might just be frustrated with the conditions and decide to take a hard reset out of ignorance and desire for better conditions, which would effectively be a prolonging of sankhara-dukkhata and is to that extent to be blamed.

Take the story of Anathapindika's daughter, attained Sakidagami stage and voluntarily starved to death because could not find a suitable husband, reborn in Tusita Heaven and will have to live out that lifespan, whereas had she stayed in the human state she might have finished the training in that very life, instead she will have to endure sankhara-dukkhata for at least the lifespan of the Deva which is probably like thousands of years, therefore it is obviously a bad decision.

Take the case of a Sotapanna who is severely ill, that is very similar, had they endured and sucked it up facing the kammavipaka therein they would surely be a lot closer to Arahantship compared to killing themselves and being reborn either human or a Devata or some sorts.

Anyway whether or not a Sotapanna can kill themselves can only serve to disprove the supposed attainment of Ven. Nanavira and not to confirm it.

[Volo]

Take the story of Anathapindika's daughter, attained Sakidagami stage and voluntarily starved to death because could not find a suitable husband, reborn in

Can you give a reference for that?

[User1249x]

So far everyone who argues that It is impossible it cannot happen that an Arahant can commit suicide is doing so based on a logical fallacy known as argument from authority and appealing to commentary of unknown mind you origin rather than using rules of inference to disprove or prove the claims. Insisting that a claim is true simply because it is said to be true by some unknown person...

[User1249x]

Take the story of Anathapindika's daughter, attained Sakidagami stage and voluntarily starved to death because could not find a suitable husband, reborn in

Can you give a reference for that?

yes i can give reference for that

[AgarikaJ]

Take the story of Anathapindika's daughter, attained Sakidagami stage and voluntarily starved to death because could not find a suitable husband, reborn in

Can you give a reference for that?

While [name redacted by admin] is looking, I can offer you this synopsis:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... html#part3

Anathapindika had four children, three daughters and a son. Two of the daughters, Little Subhadda and Big Subhadda, were steeped in the Dhamma like their father and had attained stream-entry. And just as they took after their father in spiritual matters, so they did in worldly affairs; they were both happily married.
But the youngest daughter, Sumana, surpassed even the rest of her family in her deep wisdom. Upon hearing the Buddha, she had quickly attained the second step of purification, becoming a once-returner.
She did not marry, but not because she had renounced marriage. In fact, when she saw the happiness of her two sisters, she became sad and lonely. Her spiritual strength did not suffice to overcome her depression. To the deep sorrow of her family, she wasted away, eating nothing, starving to death.
She was reborn in the Tusita heaven, the highest form of existence in the sensual realm, and there she had to purge herself of the residue of dependence on other people, her last desire directed outwardly.

[User1249x]

Take the story of Anathapindika's daughter, attained Sakidagami stage and voluntarily starved to death because could not find a suitable husband, reborn in

Can you give a reference for that?

While [name redacted by admin] is looking, I can offer you this synopsis:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... html#part3

Anathapindika had four children, three daughters and a son. Two of the daughters, Little Subhadda and Big Subhadda, were steeped in the Dhamma like their father and had attained stream-entry. And just as they took after their father in spiritual matters, so they did in worldly affairs; they were both happily married.
But the youngest daughter, Sumana, surpassed even the rest of her family in her deep wisdom. Upon hearing the Buddha, she had quickly attained the second step of purification, becoming a once-returner.
She did not marry, but not because she had renounced marriage. In fact, when she saw the happiness of her two sisters, she became sad and lonely. Her spiritual strength did not suffice to overcome her depression. To the deep sorrow of her family, she wasted away, eating nothing, starving to death.
She was reborn in the Tusita heaven, the highest form of existence in the sensual realm, and there she had to purge herself of the residue of dependence on other people, her last desire directed outwardly.

i was not looking but yes that is basically the outline of the story as the tradition has it. afaik it is based on the story complementing the 18th verse of the Dhammapada but the voluntary starvation is afaik from the commentary to the story, probably from the Dhammapadatthakatha but i am not sure because i have not read it myself and afaik there are no translations into english.

[robertk]

voluntary starvation

She couldn't eat due to her depression. She wasn't trying to starve to death.

[AgarikaJ]

afaik it is based on the story complementing the 18th verse of the Dhammapada but the voluntary starvation is afaik from the commentary to the story, probably from the Dhammapadatthakatha but i am not sure because i have not read it myself and afaik there are no translations into english.

I also do not have a better source for this, sorry.

Coming back to our discussion, it only shows that a Sakadami, even though having loosened the first three fetters, can still cling to delusions. In this case, it sounds like the daughter of Anathapindika succumbed to the fourth fetter, Sensuous Craving (for a happy relationship).

As a Sakadami is already more advanced than a Sotapanna, it suffices to say that -- for sure -- a Sotapanna can commit suicide due to his delusions. It would be expected to be generally an unwholesome act.

More interesting to me, though, is the question of how the Buddha deciding to *not* prolonging his life (even though he would have, by his own words, easily been able to do so by a meta-physical act) is different from somebody intentionally opting for a course of action that will lead to death (eg. not eating).

[User1249x]

voluntary starvation

She couldn't eat due to her depression. She wasn't trying to starve to death.

Well she was not trying to stay alive either. Seems like she could eat if she wanted to, there was nothing physically preventing her from eating as far as we can know, she was in all likeliness refusing food and lost appetite, she was still refusing food. It is not like she was so depressed that no matter how hard she tried she was unable to eat food as if her mouth was shut...

Anyway i would like to hear some actual argumentation for these wild commentarial theories that are firmly clung to by so many.

No arahat committed suicide in Theravada.

This does not mean anything. Many Theravadin traditions reject commentary, some even reject the Abhidhamma, if all Theravadin litterature is to be held to be true then the Waharaka Cult is also Theravada by all means as well as any other commentaries.

[robertk]

...

Anyway i would like to hear some actual argumentation for these wild commentarial theories that are firmly clung to by so many.

Many Theravadin traditions reject commentary, some even reject the Abhidhamma, if all Theravadin litterature is to be held to be true then the Waharaka Cult is also Theravada by all means as well as any other contradictory commentaries.

We cant say that what any moderns say, including Waharaka, rank with the ones of old.
There are reasons why the monks for millenia honored the ancient teachings:

IB Horner writes ""

The prime object of every Commentary is to make the meanings of the words and
phrases in the canonical passages it is elucidating abundantly clear, definite, definitive even....This is to preserve the Teachings of the Buddha as nearly as possible in the sense intended, and as conveyed by the succession of teachers, acariyaparama. Always there were detractors, always there were and still are "improvers" ready with their own notions. Through friends and enemies alike deleterous change and deterioration in the word of the Buddha might intervene for an indefinite length of time. The Commentaries are the armour and protection against such an eventuality. AS they hold a unique position as preservers and interpreters of true Dhamma, it is essential not only to follow them carefully and adopt the meaning they ascribe to a word or phrase each time they commnet on it. They are as closed now as is the Pali canon. No aditions to their corpus or subtractions from it are to contemplated, and no commentary written in later days could be included in it.""Horner. pxiii Clarifier of the Sweet Meaning" PAli Text Society 1978

[User1249x]

We cant say that what any moderns say, including Waharaka, rank with the ones of old.
There are reasons why the monks for millenia honored the ancient teachings:

I am sure many Theravadins will disagree with you on this

IB Horner writes ""

The prime object of every Commentary is to make the meanings of the words and
phrases in the canonical passages it is elucidating abundantly clear, definite, definitive even....This is to preserve the Teachings of the Buddha as nearly as possible in the sense intended, and as conveyed by the succession of teachers, acariyaparama. Always there were detractors, always there were and still are "improvers" ready with their own notions. Through friends and enemies alike deleterous change and deterioration in the word of the Buddha might intervene for an indefinite length of time. The Commentaries are the armour and protection against such an eventuality. AS they hold a unique position as preservers and interpreters of true Dhamma, it is essential not only to follow them carefully and adopt the meaning they ascribe to a word or phrase each time they commnet on it. They are as closed now as is the Pali canon. No aditions to their corpus or subtractions from it areany to contemplated, and no commentary written in later days could be included in it.""Horner. pxiii Clarifier of the Sweet Meaning" PAli Text Society 1978

So commentary for the first 1000 years after Parinibbana is orthodoxy but anything after that is not ok because "reasons". According to the Sutta The Buddha himself said that the True Dhamma would last 500 years therefore if one was to set a date it would be at most 500 years after PN not the 1000 years. He also said to compare texts to the discourse word for word, letter by letter and reject contradictions.

Who cares tho if IB Horner says we should follow the Vsm carefully because "reasons".

Furthermore afaik the designation of Theravada predates the Vsm by more than 500 years so it is completely reasonable to identify as Theravadin and reject the infallibility of Buddhagosa's commentaries. Am i missing something?

Imho If Sakka did hide the Vsm manuscript it was probably because it had so many mistakes.

[Zom]

IB Horner writes ""

It's a pity only theravadin commentaries survived. It would be really interesting and beneficial to read commentaries from other earliest schools

[SarathW]

What I take from this is, that there might be situations where a Sotapanna might indeed decide on the end of life, as he feels by definition neither a desire to prolong or to end life, but sees his duties fulfilled.

As far as I understand, Sotapanna has not fulfilled his duties.

[Volo]

Anathapindika had four children, three daughters and a son. Two of the daughters, Little Subhadda and Big Subhadda, were steeped in the Dhamma like their father and had attained stream-entry. And just as they took after their father in spiritual matters, so they did in worldly affairs; they were both happily married.
But the youngest daughter, Sumana, surpassed even the rest of her family in her deep wisdom. Upon hearing the Buddha, she had quickly attained the second step of purification, becoming a once-returner.
She did not marry, but not because she had renounced marriage. In fact, when she saw the happiness of her two sisters, she became sad and lonely. Her spiritual strength did not suffice to overcome her depression. To the deep sorrow of her family, she wasted away, eating nothing, starving to death.
She was reborn in the Tusita heaven, the highest form of existence in the sensual realm, and there she had to purge herself of the residue of dependence on other people, her last desire directed outwardly.

Thanks, AgarikaJ.

[DNS]

voluntary starvation

She couldn't eat due to her depression. She wasn't trying to starve to death.

It's interesting that she was a sakadagami and had depression. A modern trend found in some Buddhists is the "arahantification of sotapannas" believing sotapannas are almost on a par with arahants and here is the report of a sakadagami (much higher than a sotapanna) with depression.