Monastics and suicide

[MettaDevPrac]

]

I’m not judging, and whether I have ordained has nothing to do with understanding dhamma.
I’m asking questions which I have not received an explanation to. I have concerns with the monastic community in general.

It seemed to me your prior posts to this, and subsequent ones today, sound quite defamatory beyond questions. Throughout this lengthy thread, people have answered your questions, only to be dismssed; have you been acknowledging privately points not acknowledged publicly? Perhaps, but I offer this feedback out of friendliness, as I am retiring from this thread.

Good luck on your reformation efforts, if that's what it is.

[shoenhad]

Greetings,

What do you mean by "logical"? I don't see how he was "logically" restricted to only the choice "knife or wife" (as he wrote).

Where did I say "logically restricted", whatever that means?

Maybe I did not understand the logic and you could explain it here? (I think this would be very much on-topic and contribute something potentially useful.)

The relevant factors (beliefs, facts, knowledge etc.) underpinning the situation:

- He was a sotapanna
- Rebirth is true
- A sotapanna is on the right path and cannot be reborn in anything lower than the human realm
- Progress from sotapanna to arahant requires samadhi, jhana etc.
- Medical conditions severely inhibited his ability to cultivate samadhi and jhana
- The medical conditions responsible could not be cured, with medicines or treatments that were available to him
- Disrobing would be worse than death

If you take those factors, you can see how he logically came to his conclusion, whether you agree with it personally or not.

Metta,
Paul.

In some sense I can follow the logic being put forth here and in some sense I can not because it mainly rests on the assumption that he could not make the progress he wanted to because of his medical condition. All the other conditions appear to be of secondary concern.

I think it could set a somewhat dangerous and perhaps counterproductive precedent when one claims that conditions of the body inhibit ability for samadhi,jhana and therefore progress on the path. Of course it's not the conditions of the body but his mental reaction to it and even if that hinders his 'ability for samadhi' it could very well be that learning how to overcome this leads to an understanding and insight that might have eluded him otherwise. There seems to be no shortage of teachers that echo the notion that pain can lead to profound realizations no matter how severe and might even accelerate progress. Precisely the notion that the body impedes the mind is something to be let go of.

There is not only the assumption that his current progress would be slowed if he decides to continu but also the subsequent assumption that in a future life he would get there quicker which is also questioned by ananda in the letters they exchanged. Quite radical to base your decision on these potential unknowns considering what is at stake. Given that he was only 45 years of age raises even more questions. I also found it noteworthy that in his letter exchange with ananda he admitted that the thought of suicide receded if he was around people but at the 'expense' of more lustful thoughts, even at the hermitage, and if he cutt off those 'disturbing' contacts once again he was able to find some freedom. The problem for me at least is that the position he takes here is seemingly perceived as 'fixed' and only in these very restrictive and sterile conditions freedom can be found. Moreover the freedom he mentions here seems to be in relation to lustful thoughts which has little to do with his bodily ailment.

Of course let me be clear that I have no idea how severe his condition was or how he felt nor do I condemn his choice to take his own life but I do question the validity from a spiritual standpoint as laid out here by yourself and can't help but feel that there was more to it then what is being mentioned and can see where ananda was coming from.

[Ontheway]

Perhaps you could list the sutras, I’m not that familiar to dig them up.

From the Payasi Sutta (Here, suicide is considered a dangerous and unwise attempt to gain the next life):

12. ‘Whatever you may say about that, Reverend Kassapa, [330] I still think there is no other world...’ ‘Have you any reason for this assertion, Prince?’ ‘I have, Reverend Kassapa.’ ‘What is that, Prince?’

‘Well, Reverend Kassapa, I see here some ascetics and Brahmins who observe morality and are well-conducted, who want to live, do not want to die, who desire comfort and hate suffering. And it seems to me that if these good ascetics and Brahmins who are so moral and well-conducted know that after death they will be better off, then these good people would now take poison, take a knife and kill themselves, hang themselves or jump off a cliff. But though they have such knowledge, they still want to live, do not want to die, they desire comfort and hate suffering. And that, Reverend Kassapa, is my reason for maintaining: “There is no other world. . .”’

13. ‘Well then, Prince, I will give you a parable, because some wise people understand what is said by means of parables. Once upon a time, Prince, a certain Brahmin had two wives. One had a son ten or twelve years old, while the other was pregnant and nearing her time when the Brahmin died. Then this youth said to his mother’s co-wife: “Lady, whatever wealth and possessions, silver or gold, there may be, is all [331] mine. My father made me his heir.” At this the Brahmin lady said to the youth: “Wait, young man, until I give birth. If the child is a boy, one portion will be his, and if it is a girl, she will become your servant.” The youth repeated his words a second time, and received the same reply. When he repeated them a third time, the lady took a knife and, going into an inner room, cut open her belly, thinking: “If only I could find out whether it is a boy or a girl!” And thus she destroyed herself and the living embryo, and the wealth as well, just as fools do who seek their inheritance unwisely, heedless of hidden danger.

‘In the same way you, Prince, will foolishly enter on hidden dangers by unwisely seeking for another [332] world, just as that Brahmin lady did in seeking her inheritance. But, Prince, those ascetics and Brahmins who observe morality and are well-conducted do not seek to hasten the ripening of that which is not yet ripe, but rather they wisely await its ripening. Their life is profitable to those ascetics and Brahmins, for the longer such moral and well-conducted ascetics and Brahmins remain alive, the greater the merit that they create; they practise for the welfare of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the profit and benefit of devas and humans. Therefore, Prince, admit that there is another world...’

Then you have the Godhika Sutta - Here, you have an Arahant "using the knife", and the Buddha does not intervene.

There are other cases, in the Suttas and the Vinaya. Here is a relevant academic article.

Thanks for the Payasi Sutta and Godhika Sutta excerpts. It cleared my doubt on the matter.

[Alex123]

Ok..., but what is your point what is the difference practicing dhamma at 22 vs 87?

BIG difference:

a) One might not be alive at 87, or one might get some serious disease, so it is better to start ASAP. Even if one is not ready. One will never be ready unless one starts practising where one is at.

b) One is more capable of learning new things and changing at 22 than at 87.

IMHO.

[S. Johann]

Of course, Ven. Ñanavira was in a much more extreme situation, and I'm just trying to relate here. But still, I don't see how it was logically necessary to choose one of the extremes. Enduring and feeling shitty and horny and in pain and whatever might have brought about valuable insight, I assume.

I haven't been able to find more details about it, but on principle satyriasis could be incompatible with being a monk.
I don't know if there is a list of diseases and health problems that could be a legitimate reason for a monk to have to disrobe, even though he himself has not committed an offense that would entail disrobing. For example, if a monk is hit by a car and becomes a paraplegic bound to his wheelchair, can he still be a monk? Or if he gets a dangerous contagious disease; or has an episode of (severe, lasting) psychosis?

What do you mean by "logical"? I don't see how he was "logically" restricted to only the choice "knife or wife" (as he wrote).

For practical reasons, those seemed to him to be the only two options.

Although I find it presumputous on his part that he thought a woman would want to marry him at that point -- impoverished, emaciated, and ill.

There is no logical reason why he could not stay in robes and alive

There is such a thing as a point of no return, where nothing more can be done to improve a situation.

As for the case not having been worked out yet here. Yes, good householder, there is actually a point of no more change for improvement, but no kind of sickness, handicap, when ordained: downfall transcression. Of which the second is killing and - not understanding how clear things are not seen at all - this came exactly into play because of suicide monks (if reading origin story). Sure, the first, second, third and fourth, that of cheating, are often near related when arising.

There are sure less topics which need to be clear worked out, and downfall (meaning downfall, not next level) is such, especially in spheres where suicidal understandable gather.

Just one short answer to the topics header: outstanding fools and not a little worthy of praise, aside of some maybe bond to association with bad friends. Something good to consider.

It's not to doubt that some here simply hold it as their emergency exit as a possibility alive, not willing to go on the right track, and so possible find it worthy to justity such foolish acts. Yet, there are alternatives of practice, if falling into disgust of ones body. Yet downfall actions simply let one fall down. Who could kill knowingly an Noble One? Wake up!

Another point is, that those downfalls are also a "matter of the world", meaning that it's required to show signs of disregard and it's especially damaging when even monks are praising and fall into devotion toward such foolishness. It's usual that those with doubts still defend "liberal" views, yet simply to maintain a considered short-cut. Good to deeply cement it closed.

There is on the other side really no lose at all if simply blame it as "poor foolish" and send metta, taking it as samply how foolish one could act it lacking of good friends.