Hi cooran,
I cannot agree in that opinion.
cooran wrote:By comparison, Theravāda sources are a model of consistency in their refusal to countenance the intentional destruction of life.
When it comes to the action of an arahnt we don't talk about "intentions" anymore.
cooran wrote:Third, the commentarial tradition finds the idea that an Arhat would take his own life in the way Channa did completely unacceptable.
This is the view of the commentarial tradition, but I don't consider the commentarial tradition as a authority.
cooran wrote:Fourth, there is a logical point which, although somewhat obvious, seems to have been overlooked in previous discussions. If we assume, along with the commentary and secondary literature, that Channa was not an Arhat prior to his suicide attempt, then to extrapolate a rule from this case such that suicide is permissible for Arhats is fallacious. The reason for this is that Channa's suicide was-- in all significant respects-- the suicide of an unenlightened person. The motivation, deliberation and intention which preceded his suicide-- everything down to the act of picking up the razor-- all this was done by an unenlightened person. Channa's suicide thus cannot be taken as setting a precedent for Arhats for the simple reason that he was not one himself until after he had performed the suicidal act.
Why should we? The Buddha said about Channa's suicide:
Bhikkhu Channa took his life faultlessly.
cooran wrote:Fifth and finally, suicide is repeatedly condemned in canonical and non-canonical sources and goes directly "against the stream" of Buddhist moral teachings. A number of reasons why suicide is wrong are found in the sources[55] but no single underlying objection to suicide is articulated.
some sources mentioned [55]
1) It is an act of violence and thus contrary to the principle of ahi.msaa.
Suicide commited by an arahant is not an act of violence. 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.
2) It is against the First Precept.
The first precept is: "I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures." An arahant is not a living creature. A living arahant is not even to be found.
3) It is contrary to the third paaraajika (Cf. Miln. 195).
Same problem. I think it says: "Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive a human being of life..." First, when it comes to the action of an arahant we cannot talk about "intentions". Second, ultimately we cannot say an arahant is a being.
This goes on and on. I'm not willing to take on every argument. And since I only accept the nikayas I can't even say somthing about the Milandapanna quotes.
cooran wrote:This is not an easy thing to do, and Schopenhauer was not altogether wrong in his statement that the moral arguments against suicide "lie very deep and are not touched by ordinary ethics."[56] Earlier I suggested that the "roots of evil" critique of suicide-- that suicide was wrong because of the presence of desire or aversion-- was unsatisfactory in that it led in the direction of subjectivism. The underlying objection to suicide, it seems to me, is to be found not in the emotional state of the agent but in some intrinsic feature of the suicidal act which renders it morally flawed. I believe, however, there is a way in which the two approaches can be reconciled. To do this we must locate the wrongness of suicide in delusion (moha) rather in the affective "roots" of desire and hatred.
In the case of an arahant comitting suicide we can't locate any delusion, how can we locate any wrongness then?
cooran wrote:What Buddhism values is not death, but life. Buddhism sees death as an imperfection, a flaw in the human condition, something to be overcome rather than affirmed. Death is mentioned in the First Noble Truth as one of the most basic aspects of suffering (dukkha-dukkha).
I don't think so. Buddhism does not value death nor life. It's right that death is mentioned in the FNT as one of the most basic aspects of suffering, but birth too. And what is birth, the beginning of life.
Suicide does not end suffering. The one who commits suicide to end suffering, does act wrongly. But the one who has already been gone to the end of suffering, the one for whom there is no further rebirth, can give up this body, can take this life faultlessly.
best wishes, acinteyyo