sentinel wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 6:11 am
Bhante, this does not answer the question not killing precept include killing oneself. I don't understand, so, for a lay person to kill himself is not violating the precept of not killing?
Right.
In their discussion of the phrase "perception of a living being" the Vinaya commentators were unanimous in defining it as "the perception of another living being".
And in their discussion of the object whose killing one abstains from, the Abhidhamma commentators were unanimous in defining it as "the life-faculty of another".
"As to object": abstaining from killing living things, after making another's life faculty its object, abstains from one's own hostile volition.
(Vibhaṅga Atthakathā 384; = Dispeller of Delusion, II 122)
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
What about the intention to not exist.....could the precept about killing include the idea of not killing ones self so that it is in support of non-indulgence in the intention to not exist?
chownah
sentinel wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:11 am
I am baffled why the Buddha never forbade people from committing suicide ? He laid down precepts in which not allowing to kill other people (including animals) yet not including killing own life ?
Isn't this is something illogical ?
The Buddha never forbade anything. He gave advice and set up rules to be accepted by those who wanted to join the community of his monks. But considering his teachings if someone committed suicide although she/he had listened to his teachings then that's certainly a sign of inadequacy or immaturity and another period of countless eons of lives in samsara might be necessary before the maturity of being an adequate receptacle for his teachings is attained. Maybe then there is another Buddha known ... or becoming a Paccekabuddha might be an alternative.
chownah wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:34 am
What about the intention to not exist.....could the precept about killing include the idea of not killing ones self so that it is in support of non-indulgence in the intention to not exist?
No. To revert to my earlier example of acts and things to be avoided, as taught in the Sabbāsavasutta — killing oneself expecting that one will thereby cease to exist would be like going to a place frequented by fierce elephants (bulls, dogs, etc.) and expecting to be safe. Or like going into a cesspit or sewer and expecting not to stink. Or like associating with bad friends and expecting not to be badly influenced or to acquire a bad name. They're all imprudent things to do, but doing them doesn't violate any moral precept.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
befriend wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:58 pm
I wonder why it isn't in the first precept
Perhaps for the same reason that wasting your own money isn't included in the second precept, or trying to talk yourself into believing a falsehood isn't included in the fourth precept.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
befriend wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:58 pm
I wonder why it isn't in the first precept
Perhaps for the same reason that wasting your own money isn't included in the second precept, or trying to talk yourself into believing a falsehood isn't included in the fourth precept.
Good point Bhante but what about the third precept?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Although I understand killing oneself is not included but I rather Buddha include it since life is precious without human body liberation is quite impossible not to mention killing oneself would ends up down in the lower realms .
One who refrain from the practice of taking the life of another living creatures is called a moral person. But one who refrain from taking the life of oneself is called neither moral or immoral.
Just like giving money to others is called charity, but giving money to oneself is not.
The purpose of virtue is to avoid problems from outside, i.e. from other people or from the law.
With suicide, the problem is inside. It is either pain or depression. This is not something that can be solved via the practice of virtue.
befriend wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:58 pm
I wonder why it isn't in the first precept
Perhaps for the same reason that wasting your own money isn't included in the second precept, or trying to talk yourself into believing a falsehood isn't included in the fourth precept.
Good point Bhante but what about the third precept?
I don't think the point can be made with the third precept, for in this case the wronged party (e.g., a cuckolded husband) isn't wronged in a way that's quite analogous to being killed, robbed or lied to.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
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.
Last edited by tharpa on Wed Jan 01, 2020 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
May all beings, in or out of the womb, be well, happy and peaceful.
Perhaps for the same reason that wasting your own money isn't included in the second precept, or trying to talk yourself into believing a falsehood isn't included in the fourth precept.
Good point Bhante but what about the third precept?
I don't think the point can be made with the third precept, for in this case the wronged party (e.g., a cuckolded husband) isn't wronged in a way that's quite analogous to being killed, robbed or lied to.
I think Sarath is referring to choking the chicken or flicking the bean as a breech of precept.
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 monk believed that by cutting his own throat, he could successfully attain nibbana in the few moments before his death.
Just another reason to not put all your eggs in one basket when regarding suttas. They can be deceptive and dangerous to some. This post could be the knife a desperate person is looking for.