Suicide and rebirth

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Suicide and rebirth

Post by acinteyyo »

cooran wrote:
acinteyyo said:All there is, is in fact a body giving up it's vital functions.
A body is just rupa. It can make no decisions and have no intentions.
I was not talking just about rupa. I was talking about namarupa and the "giving up of vital functions" is just the changing of rupa in namarupa because of nama.
cooran wrote:
"....the texts do not say these were ariya. It seems they were putthujjana, but had the accumulations to attain arahaantship in the short time they had left."
The texts also do not say these were not ariya.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Suicide and rebirth

Post by acinteyyo »

nowheat wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:Since actually and in truth a living arahant is not to be found, it cannot be said that suicide of an arahant is an act against someone nor against noone nor both nor not both. It's just giving up a body. If an unenlightened being commits suicide it is an act of violence.
So then someone can kill an arahant and be blameless, because they have not committed violence against a living being?
Hi nowheat,

I don't think so.
Firtstly, I think only an arahant (or a samma sambuddha, of course) can identify an arahant and I don't think an arahant would ever take the live of another arahant. Secondly, if avijja still exists in someone, one will always be to blame for killing. It wouldn't matter whether it would be an arahant or a bug. All actions out of greed, hate and delusion are to blame. All actions out of not-greed, not-hate and not-delusion are blameless.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Last edited by acinteyyo on Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Suicide and rebirth

Post by meindzai »

My understanding was that the Buddha permitted suicide in some rare (maybe 2, and I don't have a reference) circumstances where the following conditions applied

1) They were arahants
2) Their illness was such that their bodily existence was no longer any use to anybody. Essentially the "reason to live" for an arahant is to teach others. They do not live for the sake of themselves at that point.

Whether this story is true or not, this is the only case I could see such a thing being permitted.

As for the pain vs. suffering, I don't think it's possible for any of us to conceive how an arahant perceives physical pain or pleasure. For us it's all just talk and theory. The Buddha had a lot of back pain during his later years and would often lie down to give sermons or let someone else do it. This is the same guy who before his enlightenment did such harsh asceticism that he could touch his stomach by touching his back (and vice versa). But now he clearly understands that sitting up with back pain isn't doing anybody any good. Similarly I can see how a used up and worn out body can be disposed of by an Arahant that doesn't see it as "I" or "mine." Just seems crazy to us.

-M
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Suicide and rebirth

Post by Ben »

Hi meindzai
meindzai wrote:My understanding was that the Buddha permitted suicide in some rare (maybe 2, and I don't have a reference) circumstances where the following conditions applied
Would you care to cite those examples? The only instances that I am aware of is when the Buddha has heard about the suicides after the fact and comments on the state of mind at death and/or comments on their destination following death.

I don't think it's possible for any of us to conceive how an arahant perceives physical pain or pleasure. For us it's all just talk and theory.
I disagree. We can know by inference through the examples in the suttas, the verses of the Theragatha and Therigatha and the Abhidhamma.
kind regards

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Suicide and rebirth specifically Channa's

Post by nowheat »

So is the conclusion here that there is no actual consensus on why the Buddha agreed that Channa was blameless? Theories are that he was already an arahant, or that he became an arahant at some point in the process of killing himself?

:namaste:
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Suicide and rebirth

Post by Paññāsikhara »

nowheat wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:Since actually and in truth a living arahant is not to be found, it cannot be said that suicide of an arahant is an act against someone nor against noone nor both nor not both. It's just giving up a body. If an unenlightened being commits suicide it is an act of violence.
So then someone can kill an arahant and be blameless, because they have not committed violence against a living being?
In fact, with that reasoning, kill any so-called "living being", because "in truth a living [being] is not to be found". Any living being is just as much without any living being as an arahant.

That's the sort of reasoning giving by some of the heterodox teachers, who argued that cutting off somebodies head with a sword was just inserting a piece of matter in between some other matter, and that no "living being" was there in the first place.

Such a view was naturally criticized by the Buddha, and killing an arahant is one of the five worst possible actions that one could every possibly do!
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Suicide and rebirth

Post by acinteyyo »

Paññāsikhara wrote:
nowheat wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:Since actually and in truth a living arahant is not to be found, it cannot be said that suicide of an arahant is an act against someone nor against noone nor both nor not both. It's just giving up a body. If an unenlightened being commits suicide it is an act of violence.
So then someone can kill an arahant and be blameless, because they have not committed violence against a living being?
In fact, with that reasoning, kill any so-called "living being", because "in truth a living [being] is not to be found". Any living being is just as much without any living being as an arahant.

That's the sort of reasoning giving by some of the heterodox teachers, who argued that cutting off somebodies head with a sword was just inserting a piece of matter in between some other matter, and that no "living being" was there in the first place.

Such a view was naturally criticized by the Buddha, and killing an arahant is one of the five worst possible actions that one could every possibly do!
I'm totally sure that "killing" in case of an arahant does not apply neither does "living".
The reasoning is not, kill any so-called "living being", because "in truht a living [being] is not to be found". The reasoning is, "living being" does not apply in case of an arahant, a living arahant is not to be found, how could anyone kill anything which is not to be found? But a "living being" can be found in a living being (e.g. a puthujjana), here "living" or "killing" does apply.
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Suicide and rebirth specifically Channa's

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings nowheat,
nowheat wrote:So is the conclusion here that there is no actual consensus on why the Buddha agreed that Channa was blameless? Theories are that he was already an arahant, or that he became an arahant at some point in the process of killing himself?
I think that's a fair summary of the breadth of opinion expressed.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Suicide and rebirth

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi acineyyo,
acinteyyo wrote: I'm totally sure that "killing" in case of an arahant does not apply neither does "living".
The reasoning is not, kill any so-called "living being", because "in truht a living [being] is not to be found". The reasoning is, "living being" does not apply in case of an arahant, a living arahant is not to be found, how could anyone kill anything which is not to be found? But a "living being" can be found in a living being (e.g. a puthujjana), here "living" or "killing" does apply.
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but to me you seem to be mixing up different levels of reality.

Are you saying that it is not possible for an action (perhaps with a knife or other weapon) to cause the body associated with an arahant to stop functioning (i.e. the body stops breathing, etc)? Which is what we conventionally mean when we say "killing".

Metta
Mike
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Suicide and rebirth

Post by acinteyyo »

mikenz66 wrote:Hi acineyyo,
acinteyyo wrote: I'm totally sure that "killing" in case of an arahant does not apply neither does "living".
The reasoning is not, kill any so-called "living being", because "in truht a living [being] is not to be found". The reasoning is, "living being" does not apply in case of an arahant, a living arahant is not to be found, how could anyone kill anything which is not to be found? But a "living being" can be found in a living being (e.g. a puthujjana), here "living" or "killing" does apply.
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but to me you seem to be mixing up different levels of reality.

Are you saying that it is not possible for an action (perhaps with a knife or other weapon) to cause the body associated with an arahant to stop functioning (i.e. the body stops breathing, etc)? Which is what we conventionally mean when we say "killing".

Metta
Mike
Hi Mike,

I say it is possible to cause the body to stop functioning. But this is not the whole thing what we conventionally mean when we say "killing". With "killing" we conventionally mean "to stop the body functioning" as well as "to end the life of the being associated with the functioning body". In case of an arahant this does not apply, that's why I say "killing" does not apply.
A living puthujjana actually and in truth is to be found but not an arahant. It's true that in both cases actually an in truth a self cannot be found but in case of the puthujjana the illusion of a self can be found. The clinging to one or more of the five aggregates of clinging constitutes a illusory self (attavada, sakayaditthi) which leads to the conceit "I am". That's why a puthujjana is a living being (because the puthujjana believes "I am, actually and in truth", he thinks "I am this body" for example) whereas an arahant is not. The illusion of a self actually and in truth is to be found.
In other words "killing" conventionally means "to end the life of this (illusory) self associated with one or more of the upadanakhanda by "destroying" the khanda which is associated with this (illusiory) self (this means at the same time to end the life of this (illusory) self)". And I say, this does not apply in case of an arahant.

I hope this is understandable.

Maybe you have another interpretation of what "killing" conventionally means, but I think usually we mean that the person will be killed by causing the body to stop functioning, don't we?

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Suicide and rebirth

Post by Paññāsikhara »

A living puthujjana actually and in truth is to be found but not an arahant.
It sounds to me as though you think that an in the case of an unenlightened person there is some "actual in truth" soul / person / being, but not for an arahant. Do you think that becoming an arahant entails the destruction of this "actual in truth" soul / person / being?

Whereas "actual in truth" even a puthujjana is not to be found. That is what is meant by "not self", etc.

The difference between the puthujjana and the arahanat is not viz whether or not "actual in truth" there is a being to be found, but whether or not the defilements are present. Between a puthujjana and a sotapanna, the difference is whether or not the "identity view" is present.

It seems to me that you are conflating "actual in truth being" with "identity view". Whether or not some so-called being has an identity view or defilements is irrelevant to whether or not the term "killing" is applicable.

Although if an arahant were killed, they would not think "I (actually and truly) am being killed", this is irrelevant to the act of "killing". If the killer did not think that the arahant were "actually and truly" a living being, then they wouldn't have the intention to kill the arahant in the first place. Because such a person would be at least a sotapanna, thus incapable of committing any act which would lead to hellish rebirth, and thus incapable of killing an arahant.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Suicide and rebirth

Post by acinteyyo »

Paññāsikhara wrote:
A living puthujjana actually and in truth is to be found but not an arahant.
It sounds to me as though you think that an in the case of an unenlightened person there is some "actual in truth" soul / person / being, but not for an arahant.
No, there isn't some "actual in truth" soul/person/being but there is some "actual in truth" illusion of a soul/person/being in case of an unenlightended person, but not for an arahant.
Paññāsikhara wrote:Do you think that becoming an arahant entails the destruction of this "actual in truth" soul / person / being?
No, it entails the destruction of the illusion.
Paññāsikhara wrote:The difference between the puthujjana and the arahanat is not viz whether or not "actual in truth" there is a being to be found, but whether or not the defilements are present. Between a puthujjana and a sotapanna, the difference is whether or not the "identity view" is present.
It seems to me that you are conflating "actual in truth being" with "identity view". Whether or not some so-called being has an identity view or defilements is irrelevant to whether or not the term "killing" is applicable.
A definiton from a dictionary for "to kill":
a. To put to death.
b. To deprive of life
No "identity view" means no "person" existing, no "person" existing means no conceit "I am", no conceit "I am" means there is no "being", no "being" means terms like "birth", "life", "death" aren't applicable.
According to the dictionary definition "killing" is not applicable in case of an arahant.
Paññāsikhara wrote:Although if an arahant were killed, they would not think "I (actually and truly) am being killed", this is irrelevant to the act of "killing".
Absolutely! In case of an unenlightened person it is even irrelevant who is going to be killed, it doesn't matter (very much) whether it is an arahant or not. The intentions matter and would lead to hellish rebirth for the one who's acting.
Paññāsikhara wrote:If the killer did not think that the arahant were "actually and truly" a living being, then they wouldn't have the intention to kill the arahant in the first place. Because such a person would be at least a sotapanna, thus incapable of committing any act which would lead to hellish rebirth, and thus incapable of killing an arahant.
Sure! I already said something like this here. But not equally detailed like you.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Suicide and rebirth

Post by Prasadachitta »

Hello acinteyyo,

It sounds a little like you have a Theravada equivalent of "emptiness sickness". You seem to associate "life" with "illusion". Try thinking outside the box. I wish I knew how to say that in a better way but right now but alas I am at a loss.

Metta

Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Suicide and rebirth

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi acinteyyo,

I, too, don't see how you think there is "something" to be found in a non-Arahant.

Admittedly the following is attributed to Ven Vajira, not the Buddha, but I take this as the canonical position:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'
Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Suicide and rebirth

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Acinteyyo,
acinteyyo wrote:
Paññāsikhara wrote:Do you think that becoming an arahant entails the destruction of this "actual in truth" soul / person / being?
No, it entails the destruction of the illusion.
I think you are confusing two things:
1. The Arahant going beyond self-view.
2. The view of a non-Arahant perceiving another being who may or may not be an Arahant.
In the second case whether the being is an Arahant or not makes no difference to whether the non-Arahant perceives a self in him/her.

Metta
Mike
Post Reply