Arahant's suicide

[Germann]

There is this phrase in Pali.

Sarattha-ppakasini
Buddhaghosa,s commentary on the Sanyutta-Nikaya
edited by F.L.Woodward M.A. Vol.3 p. 267

"sotapanna, sakadagami-anagami-(araha)3-khinasavapi"

note "3. VinA. omits"

Note: is not in the Vinaya. About Arahants-suicide written only in canonical Comments.

I do no understand what you are posting....making something bold and large does not help.

So....someone made up a story about what it says in some Commentary?....is that what you posted before?
chownah

How can we trust Buddhagosa as an authority on Tripitaka though he wrote Visuddhimagga. He was a hindu scholar and philisopher. He wrote visuddimagga on an invitation. He is however noted to have departed from canonical texts. The period of mahavihara when he wrote visuddhimagga is in the 5th century A.D.

We can say otherwise: how can one trust the Mahaviharavasins school (Theravada school), if in Sthavira Mahayana (at the Abhayagiri school, at the Jetavania school) could not have such problems.

All three Sri Lankan schools developed on the basis of the Tamrashatiya school.

[cookiemonster]

In the Mahayana bodhisattva does not have to cling to.

The bodhisatta in the Pali texts is called "unenlightened".

If a bodhisattva does not cling and possess no residue in clinging, then they would not be "operating" in samsara, but would be completely emancipated in parinibbana.

If khandhas is dukkha in three times, and dukkha is a loss, why did Buddha continue dukkha, staying alive - when he was able to commit suicide?

IMO, he stayed alive as long as he had after his personal awakening, in order to elucidate the Dhamma which leads to arahatta and parinibbana in its various permutations to his disciples and to the world. Once the communication of the fullness of his teaching was complete, he passed away - at a place & time specifically chosen by him. In a sense, this could be considered a "suicide".

Other arahants also chose their passing, at a specific place, time, and method. They could choose to depart early, IMO because 1. they saw that they had also completed their work and teaching to their own disciples, and 2. they expressed compassion in this respect by choosing early to be be less of a physical burden to their supporters & the world.

[chownah]

If khandhas is dukkha in three times, and dukkha is a loss, why did Buddha continue dukkha, staying alive - when he was able to commit suicide?

Because the buddha did not suffer from dukkha.....and the buddha could have blissfull and joyous abiding anytime he wanted and for as long as he wanted. A better question is "why didn't the buddha just live out his life in that blissfull and joyous abiding?"....and the canonical answer to that (I think) is out of compassion.
chownah

[chownah]

The Pali original has this phrase. The information on Theravada.ru site is correct.

I don't know what you are talking about.
So....someone made up a story about what it says in some Commentary?....is that what you posted before?....please respond to this....please answer my question.
chownah

It really is in the Commentary. See the Pali original.

Sarattha-ppakasini
Buddhaghosa,s commentary on the Sanyutta-Nikaya
edited by F.L.Woodward M.A. Vol.3 p. 267

I don't understand the pali language and presenting it overly large does not help me to understand it.
chownah

[sunnat]

"... out of compassion." is the answer to many of these questions. What if he had choosen to commit suicide after having committed himself out of compassion to teach.? What sort of example is that

[SDC]

Due to the OP wishing to discuss Mahayana ideas, this thread has been moved to "Connections..."

[Germann]

I don't know what you are talking about.
So....someone made up a story about what it says in some Commentary?....is that what you posted before?....please respond to this....please answer my question.
chownah

It really is in the Commentary. See the Pali original.

Sarattha-ppakasini
Buddhaghosa,s commentary on the Sanyutta-Nikaya
edited by F.L.Woodward M.A. Vol.3 p. 267

I don't understand the pali language and presenting it overly large does not help me to understand it.
chownah

According to the traditional Commentary on this Sutta (SN 54.9), some of the suicides were Arahants.

[Coëmgenu]

If khandhas is dukkha in three times, and dukkha is a loss, why did Buddha continue dukkha, staying alive - when he was able to commit suicide?

He did. If you believe in the omniscience of the Buddha, and since you've identified yourself as a Mahāyānika (unless I'm quite wrong) we can also assume you do, then that means that the Buddha knew that eating that food would cause him to die.

If the Buddha is omniscient, then the Buddha's death can be considered a form of suicide.

How can we trust Buddhagosa as an authority on Tripitaka though he wrote Visuddhimagga. He was a hindu scholar and philisopher.

And the Buddha was a devout Manichaean.

[cappuccino]

Buddha didn't commit suicide

he entered the dimension of Nirvana

[Coëmgenu]

Who changed the title of my post to "arahant's suicide?" That's weird. I bet it was my old frenemy: retrofuturist.

Buddha didn't commit suicide

he entered the dimension of Nirvana

If you believe in the Buddha's omniscience, that means that the Buddha voluntarily ended the existence of his material body. That's unavoidable IMO, whether or not he entered into parinibbāna. If you don't believe in the omniscience of the Buddha, that's not a problem for you.

[cappuccino]

the bursting of a bubble isn't a crime

however, if you burn someone alive, that's serious stuff

which is to say, it depends

[Coëmgenu]

the bursting of a bubble isn't a crime

however, if you burn someone alive, that's serious stuff

which is to say, it depends

In keeping with the newly found suicide (unwilling) theme, if an arhats kills himself, is it even a suicide?

When Migalaṇḍika killed many of the assemble, was it murder? Were they arhats?

[cappuccino]

if an arhats kills himself, is it even a suicide?

losing a sandcastle, or losing a castle

we react differently

because they're indeed different

[cappuccino]

When Migalaṇḍika killed many of the assemble, was it murder? Were they arhats?

definitely bad karma

[User13866]

With the breakup of the body Arahants attain parinibbana.

Some burn themselves up by entering the fire element whereas others use the knife, however they go it is blameless because they do not take up another body.

Thehefore it can not be equated with the suicide of non-arahant which is always blameworthy.

To blame the Arahant for using the knife is to say that attaining parinibbana is blameworthy.

A seventh time, while the Venerable Godhika was dwelling diligent, ardent, and resolute, he reached temporary liberation of mind.

Then it occurred to the Venerable Godhika: “Six times already I have fallen away from temporary liberation of mind. Let me use the knife.”

Then Mara the Evil One, having known with his own mind the reflection in the Venerable Godhika’s mind, approached the Blessed One and addressed him with these verses:

“O great hero, great in wisdom,
Blazing forth with power and glory!
I worship your feet, One with Vision,
Who has overcome all enmity and fear.

“O great hero who has vanquished death,
Your disciple is longing for death.
He intends to take his own life:
Restrain him from this, O luminous one!

“How, O Blessed One, can your disciple—
One delighting in the Teaching,
A trainee seeking his mind’s ideal—
Take his own life, O widely famed?”

Now on that occasion the Venerable Godhika had just used the knife. Then the Blessed One, having understood, “This is Mara the Evil One,” addressed him in verse:

“Such indeed is how the steadfast act:
They are not attached to life.
Having drawn out craving with its root,
Godhika has attained final Nibbāna.”

https://suttacentral.net/sn4.23/en/bodh ... ight=false

Strong painful feelings are increasing in me, not subsiding, and their increase, not their subsiding, is to be discerned. I will use the knife, friend Sāriputta, I have no desire to live.”

“Let the Venerable Channa not use the knife. Let the Venerable Channa live. We want the Venerable Channa to live. If the Venerable Channa lacks suitable food, I will go in search of suitable food for him; if he lacks suitable medicine, I will go in search of suitable medicine for him; if he lacks a proper attendant, I will attend on him. Let the Venerable Channa not use the knife. Let the Venerable Channa live. We want the Venerable Channa to live.”

“Friend Sāriputta, it is not that I lack suitable food; I have suitable food. It is not that I lack suitable medicine; I have suitable medicine. It is not that I lack proper attendants; I have proper attendants. Moreover, friend, for a long time the Teacher has been served by me in an agreeable way, not in a disagreeable way; for it is proper for a disciple to serve the Teacher in an agreeable way, not in a disagreeable way. Remember this, friend Sāriputta: the bhikkhu Channa will use the knife blamelessly.”

“We would ask the Venerable Channa about a certain point, if he would grant us the favour of answering our question.”

“Ask, friend Sāriputta. When I have heard I shall know.”

“Friend Channa, do you regard the eye, eye-consciousness, and things cognizable with eye-consciousness thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’? Do you regard the ear, ear-consciousness, and things cognizable with ear-consciousness thus…? Do you regard the mind, mind-consciousness, and things cognizable with mind-consciousness thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?

“Friend Sāriputta, I regard the eye, eye-consciousness, and things cognizable with eye-consciousness thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ I regard the ear, ear-consciousness, and things cognizable with ear-consciousness thus…I regard the mind, mind-consciousness, and things cognizable with mind-consciousness thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’”

“Friend Channa, what have you seen and directly known in the eye, in eye-consciousness, and in things cognizable with eye-consciousness, that you regard them thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’? What have you seen and directly known in the ear … in the mind, in mind-consciousness, and in things cognizable with mind-consciousness, that you regard them thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’?”

“Friend Sāriputta, it is because I have seen and directly known cessation in the eye, in eye-consciousness, and in things cognizable with eye-consciousness, that I regard them thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ It is because I have seen and directly known cessation in the ear … … in the mind, in mind-consciousness, and in things cognizable with mind-consciousness, that I regard them thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’”

When this was said, the Venerable Mahacunda said to the Venerable Channa: “Therefore, friend Channa, this teaching of the Blessed One is to be constantly given close attention: ‘For one who is dependent there is wavering; for one who is independent there is no wavering. When there is no wavering, there is tranquillity; when there is tranquillity, there is no inclination; when there is no inclination, there is no coming and going; when there is no coming and going, there is no passing away and being reborn; when there is no passing away and being reborn, there is neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. This itself is the end of suffering.’”

Then, when the Venerable Sāriputta and the Venerable Mahacunda had given the Venerable Channa this exhortation, they rose from their seats and departed. Then, soon after they had left, the Venerable Channa used the knife.

Then the Venerable Sāriputta approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him: “Venerable sir, the Venerable Channa has used the knife. What is his destination, what is his future bourn?”

“Sāriputta, didn’t the bhikkhu Channa declare his blameless-ness right in your presence?”

“Venerable sir, there is a Vajjian village named Pubbavijjhana. There the Venerable Channa had friendly families, intimate families, hospitable families.”

“The Venerable Channa did indeed have these friendly families, Sāriputta, intimate families, hospitable families; but I do not say that to this extent one is blameworthy. Sāriputta, when one lays down this body and takes up another body, then I say one is blameworthy. This did not happen in the case of the bhikkhu Channa. The bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly. Thus, Sāriputta, should you remember it.

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.87/en/bod ... ight=false

Well then, friends, pay homage to the Blessed One in my name with your head at his feet and say: ‘Venerable sir, the bhikkhu Vakkali is sick, afflicted, gravely ill; he pays homage to the Blessed One with his head at his feet.’ Then say: ‘Form is impermanent: I have no perplexity about this, venerable sir, I do not doubt that whatever is impermanent is suffering. I do not doubt that in regard to what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, I have no more desire, lust, or affection. Feeling is impermanent … Perception is impermanent … Volitional formations are impermanent … Consciousness is impermanent: I have no perplexity about this, venerable sir, I do not doubt that whatever is impermanent is suffering. I do not doubt that in regard to what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, I have no more desire, lust, or affection.’”

“Yes, friend,” those bhikkhus replied, and then they departed. Then, not long after those bhikkhus had left, the Venerable Vakkali used the knife.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.87/en/bod ... ight=false

It's blameless if an Arahant does it.