Suicide and rebirth

[nowheat]

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?

[nowheat]

Peter Harvey translates a section of the Vinaya commentary for us which gives a set of circumstances where suicide is not considered to be a breach of the Vinaya rules...

Ah, then there are Vinaya rules against it, presumably initiated by the Buddha?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings nowheat,

So then someone can kill an arahant and be blameless, because they have not committed violence against a living being?

No.

Blameless relates to the mental state at the time of performing the action, or otherwise phrased, the kammic quality of the action.

Metta,
Retro.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings nowheat,

Ah, then there are Vinaya rules against it, presumably initiated by the Buddha?

From the above article...

Based on these two cases a rule is formulated that proscribes assisting a suicide, praising the beauty of death in any way, and inciting anyone to kill themselves.[36] Breaking this rule entails permanent expulsion from the bhikkhu sangha. But here suicide itself is not specifically forbidden. Peter Harvey points out, in his book on Buddhist ethics, that since suicide is death, there is no need to have a rule expelling from the sangha the bhikkhu who kills himself, since he is already dead.

There is rule which seems to forbid attempting suicide, arising from the case of a monk who, tormented by sexual desire, throws himself off the Vulture's Peak.

The whole article is worth a read, if you've not already done so.

Furthermore, it is possible that someone could over-estimate their spiritual attainments. It would be unfortunate if someone was under the perception that they could do it blamelessly (i.e. without kamma, without consequence, without subsequent birth) when they were not really in such a position.

Metta,
Retro.

[nowheat]

If we think of suicide only as self-murder, an arahant cannot commit suicide, since he is free from the conceit "I am". But the simple fact that "pain is painful" remains even in the case of an arahant. If his body comes in contact with fire for example, he will certainly make an effort to get away from the flames - not out of fear, but because it hurts. So if his body becomes painful due to an illness or injury, and if there is no way to get rid of that pain otherwise, I see no valid reason why he should endure a pain which is not going to cease or which is so intense that it is preventing him from any other activity (teaching for example).

And if one has dislocated a shoulder, the wise thing to do is a violent act that causes considerable pain but leaves one with a useful arm afterward. There surely can be no blame attached to causing pain to improve the situation long-term. When there is a terminal illness causing great pain, since the highest goal of the path is to leave the body behind and reach a truly deathless state, one that has no more rebirths, it only makes sense for an arahant to step past the pain to the final goal.

I wonder why the Buddha would not apply the same rule to an unenlightened monk? In terms of real human suffering, it makes little sense to me to ask the monk who is less-skilled with handling pain to live it out, and let the arahant who has greater skill at not clinging to the suffering caused by pain slit his throat.

I didn't see anything in all I read about "great karmic effects from suicide" nothing about being reborn in Hells.

[nowheat]

Thanks to everyone who has responded. I've got several tabs open with your links and am working on reading them all.

It seems as though the Buddha himself did not take a strong stand against a person choosing to commit suicide, but did against others encouraging it. Perhaps they looked on suicide as we do in these times, as most often a failure of social connections and support, but an individual in continuous agony with no reasonable hope of relief would have the option to consider euthanasia.

I wonder, though, why it did not become a common practice for arahants to hasten final nibbana, if there was no karmic consequence.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings nowheat,

I wonder, though, why it did not become a common practice for arahants to hasten final nibbana, if there was no karmic consequence.

A short non-exhaustive list would be to create a good example to others as a living arahant, to teach, to support, to answer questions from others, to experience jhanic bliss, to uphold the reputation of the Sangha, for the continuance of the Buddha's dispensation, to not be seen to be promoting suicide as a path to the cessation of suffering etc.

Metta,
Retro.

[Ben]

Hi Retro

For an Arahant, unpleasant vedana are not suffering. All vedana, regardless whether they are pleasant, neutral or unpleasant, are just vedana, fleeting phenomena.

Agreed, but they're still unpleasant. If the enlightened were completely impartial towards pleasant feeling and unpleasant feeling, the Buddha would not have bothered to meditate post-enlightenment in order to experience the tranquillity, rapture and joy associated with jhana, or use it as a pain-killer when experiencing illness or back-troubles. I agree also with what Abyss wrote above about painful sensations - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3411#p49581

The salient characteristic of vedana being pleasant, unpleasant or neutral is no different to the characteristic of light to be this or that colour. It is an objective, observable characteristic and it should not be confused with the affective quality we bring to the experience through sanna and sankhara. The fact is that as unenlightened worldlings, our experience of vedana is shaped by our perception of what is going on, our reactive patterns of behaviour and our craving and aversion towards what is experienced or what one would like to experience. So I think there is a danger of confusing pleasant, unpleasant and neutral vedana with the experience of craving, aversion and ignorance.
I agree with Abyss in that an arahant continues to experience painful vedana but will move out of the way of pain as it is detrimental to health and the ability to continue to do what arahants do. Meditate - teach - whatever.

Also, consider what Analayo writes in his Satipatthana text (p171)...

Of further interest in a discussion of neutral feeling is the Abhidhammic analysis of feeling tones arising at the five physical sense doors. The Abhidhamma holds that only the sense of touch is accompanied by pain or pleasure, while feelings arising at the other four sense doors are invariably neutral. This Abhidhammic presentation offers an intruiging perspective on the contemplation of feeling, since it invites an inquiry into the degree to which an experience of delight or displeasure in regards to sight, sound, smell or taste is simply the outcome of one's own mental evaluation.

Thus, mental evaluation (or equanimity) cannot eradicate the inherent painful quality of painful sensations.

Venerable's work is impressive and having read the section on neutral sensation, I have to say that I will need to continue to revisit his words. I am not suggesting that as an arahant, painful sensation ceases to be painful. Its still painful, but it now lacks the admixture of our own constructs that make this or that experience dukkha.

Paticca samuppada has been interrupted and vedana no longer lead to tanha.

Agreed... though I'd say the interruption actually took place with the eradication of ignorance and everything that would otherwise flow beyond that.

Absolutely, could not have agreed more. My point being that the process dominant with the putthujana of vedana leading to tanha (within the context of paticca samuppada) has now ceased.

Maybe not sankhara or anusaya, but definitely kamma.

Do you mean kamma or do you mean vipaka? I would argue that neither apply to an arahant, but I'd be interested to understand what you mean specifically, since the examples you give are a result or consequence (broadly defined, not in any technical sense like vipaka which is mental only) of previous action (again, broadly defined... not in the sense of kamma because the Buddha didn't create kamma, yet Devadatta was envious of him).

My apologies. I often use the term kamma for vipakka or for that matter the entire equation of kamma and vipakka. As a result of past kamma, some vipakka continues to manifest within the life of the arahant. One example of that is rupa, which is borne from kamma continues to exist until the life principle is exhausted. If all kamma was made defunct at arahantship it would mean that one would die on acquiring magga and phala citta.
With regards to Angulimala:

Their assault must have been quite brutal, for Angulimala returned to the Buddha seriously injured, with blood running from his head, with his bowl broken, and with his outer robe torn. The Master saw him coming and called out to him: "Bear it, Brahmin! Bear it, Brahmin! You are experiencing here and now the result of deeds on account of which you might have been tortured in hell for many years, for hundreds of years, for many thousands of years."
Being an arahant, Angulimala remained firm and invulnerable in mind and heart. But his body, the symbol and fruit of previous kamma, was still exposed to the effects of his former evil deeds. Even the Buddha himself, as a result of former deeds, had to suffer slight injury at the hands of his evil cousin Devadatta.. The two chief disciples also had to experience bodily violence: Sariputta was hit on the head by a mischeavious demon and Mogallana was brutally murdered. If even these three great ones could not avoid bodily harm, how could Angulimala excape such a fate - he who in his present life had comitted so much evil? Yet, it was only his body that received these blows, not his mind, which remained in inviolable equipoise. Hence we may understand the Buddha's words to Angulimala a reminder of the kammic contatenation of causes and effects, which still had to be endured, though greatly ameliorated by his inner metamorphosis.

Notes to this section: The primary source for the story of Angulimala is the Angulimala Sutta (MN 86). Additional details are provided by MN Comy and Thag Comy.

-- Great Disciples of the Buddha

I hope that answers your questions.
metta

Ben

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ben,

Its still painful, but it now lacks the admixture of our own constructs that make this or that experience dukkha.

Agreed. It's one dart, not two.

SN 36.6: Sallatha Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nypo.html

As a result of past kamma, some vipakka continues to manifest within the life of the arahant. One example of that is rupa, which is borne from kamma continues to exist until the life principle is exhausted. If all kamma was made defunct at arahantship it would mean that one would die on acquiring magga and phala citta.

(This may seem pedantic and somewhat technical but please bear with me...)

As defined by Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary, vipāka is mental only...

http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/bu ... dic3_v.htm

vipāka: 'kamma-result', is any kammically (morally) neutral mental phenomenon (e.g. bodily agreeable or painful feeling, sense-consciousness, etc. ), which is the result of wholesome or unwholesome volitional action (kamma, q.v.) through body, speech or mind, done either in this or some previous life. Totally wrong is the belief that, according to Buddhism, everything is the result of previous action. Never, for example, is any kammically wholesome or unwholesome volitional action the result of former action, being in reality itself kamma. On this subject s. titthāyatana, kamma, Tab. I; Fund II. Cf. A. III, 101; Kath. 162 (Guide, p. 80).

Kamma-produced (kammaja or kamma-samuṭṭhāna) corporeal things are never called kamma-vipāka, as this term may be applied only to mental phenomena.

Hence, you are speaking of "Kamma-produced (kammaja or kamma-samuṭṭhāna) corporeal things" and I agree... kamma is a condition for the arising of form. It is not however the only factor, as indicated by the teaching of the five niyamas, as found for example in...

The Manual of Cosmic Order by Mahathera Ledi Sayadaw
http://www.dhammaweb.net/html/view.php?id=5

...where other niyamas (orders) are mentioned and elaborated upon. If form were solely kamma produced (note, not vipāka-produced!) the Buddha would indeed have died upon attaining Buddhahood... but he didn't, so it's not.

As for the quotation you provide on Angulimala, I agree with this, and find it to be possibly the best explanation for Angulimala's injuries that I've seen. The reason being that it demonstrates that past kamma is attributable for the presence of a physical body subject to physical pain and pleasure, but doesn't rely on speculation or attempt to deny that the injuries were deliberately inflicted by others.

I won't elaborate further on this quotation, as Angulimala has been discussed elsewhere in a different context (and I don't want to veer off-topic) but I think it's suffice to say that we both seem to agree that an arahant can feel painful bodily sensations, yet does not feel painful mental sensations (as all painful mental sensations are rooted in greed, aversion &/or ignorance).

Metta,
Retro.

[Ben]

Hi Retro
It was a master stroke of yours to quote some of my favourite latter-day authors in debate. Thanks for the opportunity to hone my understanding.
metta

Ben

[acinteyyo]

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.

"....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

[acinteyyo]

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

[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

[Ben]

Hi 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

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

[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?

[Paññāsikhara]

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!

[acinteyyo]

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.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings 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?

I think that's a fair summary of the breadth of opinion expressed.

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

Hi acineyyo,

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

[acinteyyo]

Hi acineyyo,

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