A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
Your objection doesn't seem to apply here. The person would have to meet all of those criteria. Most significantly, they would have to be an upasampada bhikkhu. Clarity of mind cuts through a lot of wrong actions.
Do you have a source for these criteria?tharpa wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 3:19 pm There was only one very specific type of situation where the Buddha said there was no fault for one committing suicide. Each and every instance had all of the following characteristics, without even one missing:
- The person was a monk.
- The monk had a fatal disease.
- The monk's pains were growing worse, not better.
- The monk was meditating very hard in order to attain nibbana before death.
- But the pain was interfering with the monk's meditation.
- The method of suicide was by cutting one's own throat.
- The monk believed that by cutting his own throat, he could successfully attain nibbana in the few moments before his death.
With so called suicides ( a better word taking off life) of an arhant or even an Aryan with marga Pala, what we have to realise is their cetana or intension. It is clear that the intention of ending of life is away from lobha dosa moha. Further their awareness of not continuing in samsara as they are along with the fact that they should not be a burden to others justify their taking off life.cappuccino wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 7:24 pm Despair is temporary
The worst day will pass
Suffering may lead to awakening
the past world is very different from this current worldjustindesilva wrote: With so-called suicides of an Aryan
regarding your point that monk believed he could attain nibbana by cutting his throat.tharpa wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 3:19 pm The Tatagatha did forbid assisted suicide, however. There was a monk who killed himself, and the Buddha said that it was a fault of the villagers to give him the knife.
The Buddha did also forbid suicide where the person hoped to be reborn in heaven. He said it would have the opposite effect, that they would be reborn in the lower realms instead.
There was only one very specific type of situation where the Buddha said there was no fault for one committing suicide. Each and every instance had all of the following characteristics, without even one missing:
- The person was a monk.
- The monk had a fatal disease.
- The monk's pains were growing worse, not better.
- The monk was meditating very hard in order to attain nibbana before death.
- But the pain was interfering with the monk's meditation.
- The method of suicide was by cutting one's own throat.
- The monk believed that by cutting his own throat, he could successfully attain nibbana in the few moments before his death.
I'm not sure what you mean by his translation with the Commentary: Are the words you quoted a translation of the Tipitika, or just Commentary? If just Commentary, then it is irrelevant. If Tipitika, do you have the exact Sutta it is from?
Because he may have commited suicide himself. That sounds idiotic, but hear me out. There was clearly a tradition of sramanas who believed they were enlightened comitting suicide, not by violent means like stabbing themselves but by starvation or poisoning, or a combo of starvation and painkillers that were more or less poisonous herbs. Jain tradition holds that Mahavira starved himself to death. And how did Gotama die? That "bad pork" or whatever it was that he ate, does that suttas not clearly show him saying he knew it was bad, that "I see nobody who could eat this but a Tathagata etc." Which is just a fancy way of saying "this is poisonous," so did Gotama kill himself with poison? This means of death makes it easy for the arhant claimant to predict when he will die, eat his last meal (including poison) and then die right on schedule, proving to those not in the know of how its done that he was truly an arhant "because he accurately predicted when he would die, and only an arhant can do that"; but when they conveniently die after a last meal at a preset and predicted time, people should think more about how that is done.
The SPK is the samantapasidika by Buddhaghosa
52 Spk: Channa replied to Sariputtas questions by ascribing
arahantship to himself, but Sariputta, while knowing that
he was still a worldling, just kept quiet. Mahacunda, however,
gave him an exhortation to convince him of this.
53 This "teaching of the Blessed One" is at Ud 81,&10. Spk
explains the connection between the teaching and the present
situation thus: For one who is dependent (nissitassa):
"dependent" on account of craving, conceit, and views; there
is wavering (calitam): palpitation. As Channa is unable to
endure the arisen pain, there is now the palpitation of one
who isn't free from the grip of such thoughts as "I am in
pain, the pain is mine." By this, he is telling him, "You're still
a worldling." No inclination (natr): no inclination of craving.
No coming by way of rebirth, no going by way of death. This
itself is the end of su#ering: this itself is the end, the termination,
the limit, of the suffering of defilements and of the suffering
of the round.
54 Spk: He cut his jugular vein and just then the fear of death
entered him. As the sign of his rebirth destiny appeared, he
realized he was still a worldling and his mind became agi-
tated. He set up insight, discerned the formations, and
reaching arahantship, he attained final Nibbana as a
"same-header" (samasisi; see I, n. 312).
55 Spk: Although this declaration (of blamelessness) was
made while Channa was still a worldling, as his attainment
of final Nibbina followed immediately, the Buddha
answered by referring to that very declaration.
why irrelevant?If just Commentary, then it is irrelevant
I have had heard something like this before , probably starving to death is not so painful .beanyan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:36 amBecause he may have commited suicide himself. That sounds idiotic, but hear me out. There was clearly a tradition of sramanas who believed they were enlightened comitting suicide, not by violent means like stabbing themselves but by starvation or poisoning, or a combo of starvation and painkillers that were more or less poisonous herbs. Jain tradition holds that Mahavira starved himself to death. And how did Gotama die? That "bad pork" or whatever it was that he ate, does that suttas not clearly show him saying he knew it was bad, that "I see nobody who could eat this but a Tathagata etc." Which is just a fancy way of saying "this is poisonous," so did Gotama kill himself with poison? This means of death makes it easy for the arhant claimant to predict when he will die, eat his last meal (including poison) and then die right on schedule, proving to those not in the know of how its done that he was truly an arhant "because he accurately predicted when he would die, and only an arhant can do that"; but when they conveniently die after a last meal at a preset and predicted time, people should think more about how that is done.
Hi:Pondera wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:40 am There’s the case where the Buddha was teaching the contemplation of disgust with the body to (for example) 50 monks (I don’t recall the actual number). After teaching, he retired to his hut.
20 of those monks were so disgusted with their bodies that they committed suicide.
The Buddha emerged the following day and was informed of this. His advice to the remaining 30 monks was to switch over to anapanasati.
How did the Buddha not see that ahead of time? Is he responsible for their deaths?
I believe the Buddha was omnipotent also. But how does that justify the deaths of these monks.2600htz wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 11:19 pmHi:Pondera wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:40 am There’s the case where the Buddha was teaching the contemplation of disgust with the body to (for example) 50 monks (I don’t recall the actual number). After teaching, he retired to his hut.
20 of those monks were so disgusted with their bodies that they committed suicide.
The Buddha emerged the following day and was informed of this. His advice to the remaining 30 monks was to switch over to anapanasati.
How did the Buddha not see that ahead of time? Is he responsible for their deaths?
I think its because the Buddha was able to see into the past and the future, but only if he directed his mind towards that. He was not omnipotent (example SN 42.9).
___________________________________________________________
About the subject, i think suicide falls into the precept of not killing (and fulfills all steps needed for commiting a kill: there is a living being, intention to kill, a weapon, and the action ) . Forbiding is an exaggeration, precepts are more suggestions, unless you are talking about monks. I dont know about rules, but pretty sure there is some words about suicide being wrong in the canon pali. Even if there where no rule, it does not mean it is a good thing, or that the Buddha was fine with it.
Regards.