Arahant's suicide

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Germann
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:24 pm

What is impermanent is dukkha

Post by Germann » Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:53 pm

Why did Buddha meditate if he had already achieved everything and did not feel discomfort in the old body? Jhana relieves physical discomfort and pain, as is known.

"Now I am frail, Ananda, old, aged, far gone in years. This is my eightieth year, and my life is spent. Even as an old cart, Ananda, is held together with much difficulty, so the body of the Tathagata is kept going only with supports. It is, Ananda, only when the Tathagata, disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings, attains to and abides in the signless concentration of mind, that his body is more comfortable."

What is impermanent is dukkha:
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.1/en/bodhi
"Bhikkhus, the eye is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ “The ear is impermanent…. The nose is impermanent…. The tongue is impermanent…. The body is impermanent…. The mind is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering."

Even if it is not the gross (direct) suffering of pain, but the subtle dissatisfaction of the conditioned state, dukkha is not an achievement, dukkha is not a benefit. Therefore, the original topic question is still the same.

Only by the fact that the Arahant of the Pali Canon considers the benefit of others more important than his own benefit (the quick and final deliverance from all kinds of dukkha) is it possible to explain his refusal to commit suicide - at a time when the Arahant performs many actions.

In Mahayana, to consider the benefit of others more important than one's own benefit is the motivation of Bodhichitta.

chownah
Posts: 8102
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: It is not said that they will not suffer if the functioning of khandhas continues.

Post by chownah » Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:28 pm

Germann wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:36 pm
chownah wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:35 pm
Germann wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:27 pm

What a Sutta says about khandhas without upadana, which are not dukkha?
SN 22.48 Khandha Sutta delineates "aggregates" and "clinging aggregates".
Clinging and craving are the same thing from Nyanatloka's dictionary.

SN 56.11 Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting Rolling the Wheel of Truth says that cessation of suffering comes from not craving.

Therefore those who have eradicated craving will have the cessation of suffering.....so....arahants (who have eradicated craving) will not suffer.

chownah
It is not said that they will not suffer if the functioning of khandhas continues.
It is said that the cessation of suffering comes from not craving/clinging and that there are clinging khandas and khandas which are not clung to and that the clinging khandas are the basis for craving and that arahants don't respond to the clinging aggregates and that THE ONLY THING THE BUDDHA TAUGHT WAS THE END OF SUFFERING and that arahants have reached the goal.

chownah

User avatar
Germann
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:24 pm

In the Pali text "dukkha"

Post by Germann » Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:22 pm

chownah wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:28 pm
THE ONLY THING THE BUDDHA TAUGHT WAS THE END OF SUFFERING
In the Pali text "dukkha", not the more specific word "pain", etc. Khandhas is dukkha, and even if you deny any bodily discomfort to Arahant, preserving dukkha (khandkhas) is a denial of benefits - a denial of an accessible, in the form of suicide, rapid termination of dukkha. For a long time, Arahant has been giving up his profit, for the benefit of others.

In Mahayana, it is the motivation of Bodhichitta.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 2744
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Arahant's suicide

Post by cappuccino » Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:11 pm

Suicide often doesn't work. And leads (merely) to harm of the body.

Suicide is (therefore) dangerous & inadvisable.

santa100
Posts: 3678
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Arahant's suicide

Post by santa100 » Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:18 pm

Germann wrote:In Mahayana, to consider the benefit of others more important than one's own benefit is the motivation of Bodhichitta.
Well, since you seem to come from a Mahayana background, if you still believe in the differentiation/prioritizing between oneself versus others as the motivation of Bodhicitta, then sorry to break it to you, that's an outright misunderstanding of the fundamental Mahayana teaching as reflected in the Diamond Sutra:
Diamond Sutra wrote:Subhuti, if bodhisattvas abide in the notions of a self, a person, a sentient being, or a life span, they are not bodhisattvas.”
So that old decrepit arahant you've been constantly encouraging to commit suicide, maybe the reason he continues to abide peacefully in his present existence is due to the fact that he's the one who's truly understood the real meaning of the Mahayana doctrine while you have not.

User avatar
Germann
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:24 pm

Post by Germann » Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:23 pm

santa100 wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:18 pm
Germann wrote:In Mahayana, to consider the benefit of others more important than one's own benefit is the motivation of Bodhichitta.
Well, since you seem to come from a Mahayana background, if you still believe in the differentiation/prioritizing between oneself versus others as the motivation of Bodhicitta, then sorry to break it to you, that's an outright misunderstanding of the fundamental Mahayana teaching as reflected in the Diamond Sutra:
Diamond Sutra wrote:Subhuti, if bodhisattvas abide in the notions of a self, a person, a sentient being, or a life span, they are not bodhisattvas.”
So that old decrepit arahant you've been constantly encouraging to commit suicide, maybe the reason he continues to abide peacefully in his present existence is due to the fact that he's the one who's truly understood the real meaning of the Mahayana doctrine while you have not.
The self-existent "atman" is denied, not any "atman" - the Middle view is not nihilism.

santa100
Posts: 3678
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re:

Post by santa100 » Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:24 pm

Germann wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:23 pm
santa100 wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:18 pm
Germann wrote:In Mahayana, to consider the benefit of others more important than one's own benefit is the motivation of Bodhichitta.
Well, since you seem to come from a Mahayana background, if you still believe in the differentiation/prioritizing between oneself versus others as the motivation of Bodhicitta, then sorry to break it to you, that's an outright misunderstanding of the fundamental Mahayana teaching as reflected in the Diamond Sutra:
Diamond Sutra wrote:Subhuti, if bodhisattvas abide in the notions of a self, a person, a sentient being, or a life span, they are not bodhisattvas.”
So that old decrepit arahant you've been constantly encouraging to commit suicide, maybe the reason he continues to abide peacefully in his present existence is due to the fact that he's the one who's truly understood the real meaning of the Mahayana doctrine while you have not.
The self-existent "I" is denied, not any "I" - the Middle view is not nihilism.
That's your interpretation, that's not what the Diamond Sutra says. Here, I'll make it easier for you to see and see the contrast between the 2 statements:
Germann wrote:In Mahayana, to consider the benefit of others more important than one's own benefit is the motivation of Bodhichitta.
versus:
Diamond Sutra wrote:Subhuti, if bodhisattvas abide in the notions of a self, a person, a sentient being, or a life span, they are not bodhisattvas.”
Last edited by santa100 on Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Germann
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:24 pm

Post by Germann » Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:26 pm

santa100 wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:24 pm
Germann wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:23 pm
santa100 wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:18 pm

Well, since you seem to come from a Mahayana background, if you still believe in the differentiation/prioritizing between oneself versus others as the motivation of Bodhicitta, then sorry to break it to you, that's an outright misunderstanding of the fundamental Mahayana teaching as reflected in the Diamond Sutra:

So that old decrepit arahant you've been constantly encouraging to commit suicide, maybe the reason he continues to abide peacefully in his present existence is due to the fact that he's the one who's truly understood the real meaning of the Mahayana doctrine while you have not.
The self-existent "I" is denied, not any "I" - the Middle view is not nihilism.
That's your interpretation, that's not what the Diamond Sutra says.
This is the school approach of Gelug, repeatedly stated by Tsongkapa and Dalai Lama.

santa100
Posts: 3678
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re:

Post by santa100 » Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:29 pm

Germann wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:26 pm
santa100 wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:24 pm
Germann wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:23 pm

The self-existent "I" is denied, not any "I" - the Middle view is not nihilism.
That's your interpretation, that's not what the Diamond Sutra says.
This is the school approach of Gelug, repeatedly stated by Tsongkapa and Dalai Lama.
Then you are slandering the Gelug lineage, Tosongkapa, and the Dalai Lama, because all of them practice and adhere to the teaching of the Mahayana Diamond Sutra. This is beyond all doubt your own interpretation:
Germann wrote:In Mahayana, to consider the benefit of others more important than one's own benefit is the motivation of Bodhichitta.
versus:
Diamond Sutra wrote:Subhuti, if bodhisattvas abide in the notions of a self, a person, a sentient being, or a life span, they are not bodhisattvas.”
And since we're on a Theravada forum, and you already knew Theravadins only side with the Suttas, not the Gurus, if by any chance you see the Dalai Lama says things that goes against the Sutras/Vinayas, being a consciencious Mahayanist like yourself, you should write to him and present Sutra evidences to refute it. Do not go blindly with everything just because Gelug, Tsonkapa, or Dalai Lama said it.

User avatar
Germann
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:24 pm

Post by Germann » Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:38 pm

santa100 wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:29 pm
Germann wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:26 pm
santa100 wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:24 pm

That's your interpretation, that's not what the Diamond Sutra says.
This is the school approach of Gelug, repeatedly stated by Tsongkapa and Dalai Lama.
Then you are slandering the Gelug lineage, Tosongkapa, and the Dalai Lama, because all of them practice and adhere to the teaching of the Mahayana Diamond Sutra. This is beyond all doubt your own interpretation:
Germann wrote:In Mahayana, to consider the benefit of others more important than one's own benefit is the motivation of Bodhichitta.
versus:
Diamond Sutra wrote:Subhuti, if bodhisattvas abide in the notions of a self, a person, a sentient being, or a life span, they are not bodhisattvas.”
Who is Subhuti if there is nobody? The Mahayana is not absurd. Although a separate, constant, unchanging Subhuti cannot be found - Subhuti, the interlocutor, appears. Also with any buddhist.


User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 2744
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re:

Post by cappuccino » Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:43 pm

:candle:
Last edited by cappuccino on Sat Aug 03, 2019 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

santa100
Posts: 3678
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Arahant's suicide

Post by santa100 » Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:44 pm

Germann wrote:Who is Subhuti, who are they addressed to if there is nobody? The Mahayana is not welcomed by the absurd. Although a separate, constant, unchanging Subhuti cannot be found - Subhuti, the interlocutor, appears. Also with any Buddhist.
If that's the case, then all the more reason the differentiation/prioritizing of a self versus others as advocated by you is an absurd idea. You're basically advocating for a prioritization of some inherently intrinsically empty entity over some other inherently intrinsically empty entity. Now if that's not absurd, I don't know what else is.

User avatar
Germann
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:24 pm

Cannot be found and appears

Post by Germann » Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:45 pm

santa100 wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:44 pm
Germann wrote:Who is Subhuti, who are they addressed to if there is nobody? The Mahayana is not welcomed by the absurd. Although a separate, constant, unchanging Subhuti cannot be found - Subhuti, the interlocutor, appears. Also with any Buddhist.
If that's the case, then all the more reason the differentiation/prioritizing of a self versus others as advocated by you is an absurd idea. You're basically advocating for a prioritization of some inherently intrinsically empty entity over some other inherently intrinsically empty entity. Now if that's not absurd, I don't know what else is.
Man cannot be found (as something self-existent) and man appears. At the same time. Thus, two truths are revealed: absolute (absence of self-existing) and relative (manifestations). Two truths are two aspects of the same true reality, they are simultaneous.

There is a video about this. Cannot be found and appears

santa100
Posts: 3678
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Arahant's suicide

Post by santa100 » Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:49 pm

Germann wrote:Thus, two truths are revealed: absolute (absence of self-existing) and relative (manifestations). Two truths are two aspects of the same true reality, they are simultaneous.
If that's the case, then the entire OP is an absurd inquiry, at least from the angle of the absolute truth. Actually also from the angle of relative truth too, since you said they're all the same true reality and simultaneous. So bottom line is, the OP is irrelevant and meaningless.

User avatar
Germann
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:24 pm

Post by Germann » Sat Aug 03, 2019 6:12 pm

santa100 wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:49 pm
Germann wrote:Thus, two truths are revealed: absolute (absence of self-existing) and relative (manifestations). Two truths are two aspects of the same true reality, they are simultaneous.
If that's the case, then the entire OP is an absurd inquiry, at least from the angle of the absolute truth. Actually also from the angle of relative truth too, since you said they're all the same true reality and simultaneous. So bottom line is, the OP is irrelevant and meaningless.
Bottom line is that MANIFESTATIONS are empty of self-existence. The absence of something self-existing and the MANIFESTATION of what is empty of it is simultaneously. This is called the “two truths,” which are two aspects of the same true reality.

Therefore, it is possible to talk with Subhuti - he is not something non-existent. In this case, a self-existing Subhuti is not found.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], sakyan and 84 guests