Suicide and Euthanasia according to Theravada

[Individual]

It seems like the world would be better off if the Tipitaka didn't include the deaths of Vakali and Channa. It's not good that they be mentioned in a setting like this.

I don't anticipate this being a constructive discussion, because people will tend to pick the interpretations that favor their own biases.

The suttas make it clear that killing is wrong, but also to practice discernment and compassion. People who are sincere in their beliefs can come to differing points-of-view by emphasizing these two different aspects of the teaching. And they can both come to mistaken beliefs too. Suicide is obviously wrong in every conceivable case that could be brought up today. But with euthanasia (as with abortion), I don't think it's so simple. In my opinion, it is as foolish to categorically condemn euthanasia as to defend it. I respect and honor a person who would not kill another or ask to be killed, regardless of circumstances. But I don't think we can always simply disregard the evaluation the circumstances and not ask, "Are we really being wisely compassionate or are we just blindly following a certain rule?" We should acknowledge the possibility of finding specific cases where it is unwise and cruel to follow the letter of the law, of the precepts.

The wholesomeness of our own view is also demonstrated by our emotional reaction when we come into contact with an opposing view. If, when you come into contact with an opposing view, and you feel hatred, you should examine that and you may see that your own view is tied up with hatred.

[Individual]

I would also add: For anyone who claims that the cases of Vakkali or Channa add support for or against suicide and euthanasia... Unless you are an Arahant or a Buddha, I would be skeptical of your interpretations. Because without being an Arahant or a Buddha, you would not truly be able to understand and explain the full meaning of those cases... How is it that somebody can spend a whole lifetime of dhamma practice and not reach Nirvana, but these two reached it spontaneously during acts of suicide? The commentarial position in the case of Vakkali seems ludicrous: He realized his putthujana state and then suddenly reached Nirvana? How does a Putthujana reach Nirvana, while committing one of the most heinous acts one can possibly can commit? None of you can explain this -- whether you are opposed to euthanasia or in favor of it. And even if you claim you can explain it, your explanation means nothing if you can't demonstrate that knowledge.

Because you can't explain it or demonstrate what it means, what judgments can you actually make? How can you judge "what the Buddha really thought," about Channa and Vakkali when you don't even know what Channa and Vakkali thought in that situation?

[Ben]

I'd like to see BlackBird's question addressed directly.

The following is the sentiment that I suspect is underlying the OP hence my post, however it's no place of mine to presume what other are thinking:

I agree with your other comment, there is a world of difference between someone like Channa and Nanavira (or one of us).
kind regards

I can't help but feel that this idea of equating Ven. Nyanavira to Ven. Channa Thera is a misinterpretation of the argument that was being used.

I am definitely not equating Nanavira to Ven Channa. Ven Channa's attainment was recognized by the Buddha. I simply do not believe Nanavira's claim of attainment. And he did invalidate his claim of being a sotapanna by killing himself.

If one is an arahant and there is no more work to be done and one is suffering from a degenerative disease that is one thing, quite another for anyone other than an arahant. In my view, Nanavira was none other than yet another person who mistook whatever spiritual/meditative experience as being path&fruition.

The suttas are then brought in to show that Arahants (or Ariyas if you prefer the commentarial interpretation) are capable of taking their lives.

Jack do you have any examples from the Nikayas where a non-arahant ariya has taken his life blamelessly?

The purpose is simple, to show that an act of suicide does not render a person's message or wisdom invalid, for you can't get much more credible than an Arahant.

Do you believe Nanavira was an arahant?

Unlike most people today, they knew what they were on about.

[quote='"jack"]Respectfully Ben, that's your opinion, and as far as I can tell there's not really any evidence to support it, which makes it an article of faith in tradition.

No its not,actually.

I've been tip toeing around this one for a while, but I feel it's going to come to a head sooner or later.

I'll get my hardhat.

my apologies.

There is no need to apologise!

[BlackBird]

Thank you Mike & Individual, enjoyed reading your posts.

[Paññāsikhara]

Greetings bhante,

I personally find Harvey and Keown are great sources, particularly some of the nuances they point out with respect to the passages in the suttas.

Things like the case of Channa who "used the knife" and the way this way regarded by the Buddha in sutta, versus how it was regarded by post-canonical sources?

Metta,
Retro.

Mike has cited it above, the difference between "exoneration" and "condone", for instance. In a sense, there was no blame in that they "did not take up further existence". It is towards this further existence that there is blame or otherwise, rather than the act of suicide itself.

[Paññāsikhara]

Regards the "starving" to death situation, there may be the case whereby the person chooses not to eat, and although people bring them food, they choose not to partake. This is quite different from with holding food. In effect, it is a kind of suicide rather than euthanasia.

We may also wish to consider the role of death by starvation in non-Buddhist traditions co-temporary with the Buddha. In particular, Jaina. In fact, for Jains, the highest way to die is for an arhat to commit suicide by starvation.

(Recently heard a very interesting story along this line, from a well known Prof of Buddhist Studies, whose grand mother choose this way to die - she survived 56 days on naught but water. It was a very moving journey at the end for her and her whole family.)

[Sanghamitta]

Sorry Mike and Ben. I saw this as a spin-off from another thread. It seemed to me the famous "Nanavira killed himself so he therefore cannot be trusted to have said anything worthwhile" meme was in play.

You mean as opposed to the "its wrong for anyone but an arahant to kill themselves " meme.....

Just read it out loud to yourselves...

" Its wrong for anyone but an arahant to kill themselves ".....

[Sanghamitta]

Regards the "starving" to death situation, there may be the case whereby the person chooses not to eat, and although people bring them food, they choose not to partake. This is quite different from with holding food. In effect, it is a kind of suicide rather than euthanasia.

We may also wish to consider the role of death by starvation in non-Buddhist traditions co-temporary with the Buddha. In particular, Jaina. In fact, for Jains, the highest way to die is for an arhat to commit suicide by starvation.

(Recently heard a very interesting story along this line, from a well known Prof of Buddhist Studies, whose grand mother choose this way to die - she survived 56 days on naught but water. It was a very moving journey at the end for her and her whole family.)

Had she lived in the UK her depression and underlying condition would have been treated and she might have died in a less dramatic and punishing way.

[cooran]

Hi Chris, apart from being a collection of articles on the subject of suicide within Theravada Buddhism, is there any comment you would like to make for or against that could provide a 'starting point' for some discussion?

Hello Jack, alan, all,

I put this thread in the General Theravada Forum as I would like some discussion on the whole topic (not just controversies) from the perspective of traditional Theravada.
Putting up resources concerning Nanavira was not intended as a red flag - simply that I wished to include all the articles I have on the matter, and I have been reading those concerning him due to the other thread.

I’m not pushing any particular wheelbarrow, but I do regard Buddhavacana as the Gold Standard.

With metta
Chris

[BlackBird]

Hi Chris, thanks for the clarification.

" Its wrong for anyone but an arahant to kill themselves ".....

I've read it aloud and I still happen to think it makes decent sense in certain circumstances.

[Sanghamitta]

Ok if that sounds reasonable to you..who am I to argue.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

If someone is in favour of voluntary euthanasia, does it make any difference who pulls the pin?



Metta,
Retro.

[Ben]

Greetings,

If someone is in favour of voluntary euthanasia, does it make any difference who pulls the pin?



Metta,
Retro.

Yes,I think so. I think the kamma as a result of the person doing the euthanasing is 'weightier' than the person who assents to it or desires someone to take their life because the person who performs the act marries their intention with the act knowing that the act will end someone's life. I think this is different to the kamma of someone who instructs, asks or assents to euthanasia where the killing is performed by someone else.
But my understanding could be faulty...

[cooran]

Hello Ben, Retro, all,

It is complicated. Often we think our motives are kind and compassionate, but they are based on fear or aversion to an idea, a sight, a sound, or a smell .... more about removing our own discomfort than to bring ease to another. Having worked in aged care, intensive care and surgical wards as a counsellor, I know there are alternatives to euthanasia ... the increasing of medication to relieve pain and bring comfort, when a side-effect but not the intention, may be the eventual death of the patient.

I have always found a reliable guide in:
Good, Evil and Beyond - Kamma in the Buddha's Teaching by P. A. Payutto
http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris

[Viscid]

the increasing of medication to relieve pain and bring comfort, when a side-effect but not the intention, may be the eventual death of the patient.

So you know that a side-effect of the medication you're doping these seniors up with may bring sudden death, but because you're leaving it up to chance you've absolved yourself of guilt?

(Though I actually agree this may be the best way to do it without having to deal with the problem of trying to decide who should and who should not be allowed to kill themselves.)