Meaning of Life, Death and Suicide
-
i heard is that our own lives are owed to our parents. ending own lives means unfilial to the parents, which is a big sin.
-
When one loses one mental and physical abilities one by one eg when one is bedridden, unable to move any body part, cannot talk or express urinate and pass motion uncontrollably, AND YET one needs the feeble and eldery parents to take care of one's needs for days, weeks, months and years.
Do you think it will be more distressing to the parents ?
Do you think one has the heart to live on ?
Do you think it will be better when one tries to take care of the elderly parents' future financial needs when one passed away instead of wasting the money on the terminal illness with debilitating conditions eg multiple sclerosis ?
Do you think it will be better when one tries to ease the elderly patients' possible grieves gradually by talking to them about live, death and suicide indirectly before one passed away ?
-
Accroding to Buddhism, to die by suicide will lead one to the ghost realm.
There are many ways that one can die
1. through illness
2. being murdered
3. does not wake up from sleeping
4. laugh to death
5. choke to death
6. met with car, train accidents and die
7. met with natural disasters and die
8. die in a war
What are the Buddhists' views on how would a person's karma be affected if one dies in different ways ?
-
Originally posted by Ahm97sic:
Accroding to Buddhism, to die by suicide will lead one to the ghost realm.
There are many ways that one can die
1. through illness
2. being murdered
3. does not wake up from sleeping
4. laugh to death
5. choke to death
6. met with car, train accidents and die
7. met with natural disasters and die
8. die in a war
What are the Buddhists' views on how would a person's karma be affected if one dies in different ways ?
The ways u mentioned above are indeed many types of death, not by own accord as in suicide, but by other conditions or other parties. So in a way, I don't think we can say how a person's karma is affected by such death, but rather such deaths are brought about by ripen karma done either in the past lives or in the present lifetime.Nobody can escape death. Thus eventually, we will die in various "patterns" as in the ways you've listed, or many other ways as well..
Thus, we shouldn't think too much about what are the ways to die, how to die easily, nicely, efficiently, or even happily.
We will all die.
So, I guess we must learn how to face death possitively. ie. to take things as they come, not to cheat obstacles, but to face squarely at them and do what we can do with all available means and resources we have at that particular moment.
Sometimes, we should learn how not to think all the "what ifs"... If not, we can't move on. We would be stuck in our own worries of things that may not even happen in the way we evisaged. Plan ahead, yes, over-planned, precious time and resources are duplicated; attachment grows, sufferrings increased, suicide may now creep into your agenda!
-
Originally posted by Ahm97sic:
What are the Buddhists' views on AMD ie Advanced Medical Directive ? The AMD is signed by the patient and given to the hospital so that the doctor should not revive the patient.
Does this mean suicide too based on Buddhists' views and how is the patient's karma be affected ?
If I'm not wrong, AMD ( sorry, last time I said Advance medical advice) must also be signed by more than one doctors. And before this, the patient must also go through a thorough interview and assessment by a authorised medical personnel or team. It is not so easy actually, as this is not a Pass to end a patient's life, but to stop giving additional medical hep to artificially prolonged the patient's life.So I guess, based on this motive, AMD does not really equates to commiting suicide. Of cos this is my personal opinion only.
-
Originally posted by Ahm97sic:
When one loses one mental and physical abilities one by one eg when one is bedridden, unable to move any body part, cannot talk or express urinate and pass motion uncontrollably, AND YET one needs the feeble and eldery parents to take care of one's needs for days, weeks, months and years.
Do you think it will be more distressing to the parents ?
Do you think one has the heart to live on ?
Do you think it will be better when one tries to take care of the elderly parents' future financial needs when one passed away instead of wasting the money on the terminal illness with debilitating conditions eg multiple sclerosis ?
Do you think it will be better when one tries to ease the elderly patients' possible grieves gradually by talking to them about live, death and suicide indirectly before one passed away ?
The case you mentioned above is of cos most unfortunate, both to the patient and his parents.But that doesn't warrent a suicide or even murder.
I believe you think otherwise, or else you wouldn't have keep repeating this question.
But I just can't give you any justifications for taking one's own life or others' lives. It may seems to "solve" a problem for the moment, but the price to pay is much higher later. Its like one go to the bottle to escape his problems, then ends up drunk and ran over by lorry.For the case above, if one is really worried about this possible scenario, which is of cos not wrong if out of love for ones' parents or care givers, one should seriously think of consulting the doctors about AMD. Then dicuss it with family members to let them know about your decisions, so as to reduce their possible guilt or attachments later. Then move on to other things in life: like providing for your parents, family, improving ourselves phyically and mentally for planning a better later life. Give them love and security now, rather than mentally over burdened yourself and you loved ones over the unforseen future too much unneccessarily.
What do u mean by talking about suicide to parents? Sorry to say this, but there are children who sincerely wished their parents dead by suicide. The parents are a burden to such children. And there are also parents who wish to end their own lives in order for their children to lead a happy life without them. As Buddhists, non- Buddhists, aliens, etc, suicide is a NO.
-
We must prepare for death, not run away from death, or refuse to live.
It is not easy, that's why we must learn how to. Buddhadharma shows us how.
And I'm still learning.
-
Oh, one more thing, I think Isis and AEN have already given very good links and articles for your questions, so I guess it would be beneficial if you will to spend more time on understanding them again.
Live well.
-
"What do u mean by talking about suicide to parents? Sorry to say this, but there are children who sincerely wished their parents dead by suicide. The parents are a burden to such children. And there are also parents who wish to end their own lives in order for their children to lead a happy life without them. As Buddhists, non- Buddhists, aliens, etc, suicide is a NO."
When I mean talking to parents indirectly, I mean one will try to ease the grief of the elderly parents for the lost of a child when they have found out that the child has committed suicide and the child has decided to end his or her life so that one will not be a burden to the elderly parents. True, the elderly parents will be very sad but when time passes they will get over the grief.
Instead of spending money on the treatment of the terminal disease eg multiple sclerosis with debilitating conditions, the money can provide for the elderly parents to live on with less financial worry.
Does one still have the heart to live on while the elderly parents are struggling to look after oneself and still they have to struggle to earn a living at the same time ?
-
Originally posted by Ahm97sic:
When I mean talking to parents indirectly, I mean one will try to ease the grief of the elderly parents for the lost of a child when they have found out that the child has committed suicide and the child has decided to end his or her life so that one will not be a burden to the elderly parents. True, the elderly parents will be very sad but when time passes they will get over the grief.
You are absolutely right on the part that parents will be grief stricken when their child commited suicide.So let's see it this way: how would they feel after knowing that their child ended his/her life for the sake of the parents' financial well being? I guess almost all ( normal) parents will be devastated to hear this... no amount of time can ease such pain. In fact, some may be so guilt ridden that they may also end their life to stop their misery( which is one of the many reasons why one choose suicide- to end misery)). Just imagine you are the parents( cos so far, you are thinking from the view of the sick children), such sufferings is not difficult to understand.
So is it indirectly a suicide cum murder?
Then is this justified? Are the children being filial? Hero? Sadly, no.
-
Originally posted by Ahm97sic:
Instead of spending money on the treatment of the terminal disease eg multiple sclerosis with debilitating conditions, the money can provide for the elderly parents to live on with less financial worry.
I think if we carefully break up your main concern over this topic of suicide for terminal disease patients, it is Money.So let's see it this way, is money more important to you when your child is diagnosed to contract a life long illness( ok, a incurable one also)? Or maybe you are single you can't imagine the love for one's child, so how about your lover? I think most ppl would want to give up all they have to save their precious ones, or to reduce their pains through the right means if money can do the job.
A human is not a commodity. Turned bad, so throw away. Not new anymore, don't repair, save money.
So you want to live on rich, or to see that you have tried your best to save your beloved?
For AMD to take effect or not, relies on the medical experts at that moment. And the parents or loved ones would then have to trust the professional decisions by such medical team. So before the AMD is evoke, we try our best to prepare death peacefully. As a dying child, we must not waste anymore time but try our very best of our remaining days to let our parents understand the impermance of life and help them to let go of us gracefully and peacefully when that day come. This, I guess is the best form of filial piety.
-
Originally posted by Ahm97sic:
Does one still have the heart to live on while the elderly parents are struggling to look after oneself and still they have to struggle to earn a living at the same time ?
Yes, this is indeed a sad scenario if one never prepares for the unforseen future. So that's why there are insurance policies available. Or financial plannings as simple as disciplined savings etc.As for cases where such situation has already happened, then it is unfortunate that the karma obstructions has come into play ( indirectly and directly as in not buying insurance, or not enough savings, or other obstructions). But it doesn't warrant a suicide. We must clear away these karmic obstructions, not create new ones.
-
Whenever we are sick, we will suffer discomfort or pain.
Different persons have different level of tolerance towards illness.
We are able to tolerate the suffering of the minor illness eg cold or flu.
When the illness is serious and with many symptoms eg unbearablely itchy (need to scratch until it bleeds), tearing pain (until one bangs against the wall or beat one body with the fists violently), great discomfort (until one feel like jumping out of the window to end the discomfort), grasping for breath (until one loses unconsciousness), and many other intense discomfort and pain, our tolerance level towards the illness will be lowered greatly to the point that we might decide to let go and die.
What are the ways to cope with these intense discomfort and pain ?
Doctors and nurses can help to alleviate these intense discomfort and pain through medication and other methods to some extent.
But there are many instances, the doctors are not able to help too and the persons will have to suffer the intense discomfort and pain without any help. (When one has continuous and unbearable pain as in the case of primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) patients, the doctors have given all the possible medications to reduce the pain but PPMS patients will find that no medication will help. Every day is a struggle and torment and they live one day at a time. They have to continue to find hope to wake up for the next day. The doctors have no medication and treatment for the PPMS patients)
In these instances, people will feel that they are in a helpless situation and they will be most likely to let go and die. -
buddha encouraged an arhat to suicide so it must depend on the individual's situation
-
Buddha does not encourage arhart to suicide
-
Originally posted by sofital:
Buddha does not encourage arhart to suicide
he encouraged one particular arhat to suicide cos the arhat has headaches or something that prevented enlightenment -
Hi, sorry but I think you are still repeating your question...
So I guess now you know why there are no more replies or comments to this thread for quite a while. I came in again becos I felt that you are a kind person who sincerely wanted very much for comments. But I also realised that you actually wanted comments that support your stand, rather than listen to different views or those that opposed yours.
There are many helpless situations in life, thousands if we want to think of it. And yes, becos of these situations, there are ppl who wish to end their lives. But that doesn't mean we should encourage such options, support such descisions, beautify it, or even to follow suit.
Yes, we should try to understand their predicament, just as in Buddhadharma teaches us to understand sufferings, so that we can learn how to deal with it ourselves and help others to deal with theirs as well; in terms of knowing what is life, what is sufferings, how to reduce sufferings, and how to get out of sufferings.
The examples you gave, in your particular topic, are one of the countless types of sufferings in life, one of the many kinds of physical or mental sufferings of sentient beings. There are worse cases ( just look at natural dissaters, wars, terrorism etc).There are thus of cos many instances, including what you've mentioned repeatedly, where no outside tangible help can be given anymore; that's why it is suffering. So how to reduce it by other means is of importance now. Our minds can do wonders.
I think you will dissagree again, or just cannot accept the fact that the mind can turn a situation around. This is not a concept that can be grasped overnight. This is understanable as I'm no master of Buddhism to be able to help you see the light. This is my limitations. But I do hope you can go beyond your pre-determined scope of presuming suicide as the way out of sufferings, and have the good opportunity to be able to understand the ultimate truth of life one day.
Good luck.
-
Originally posted by extra one:
buddha encouraged an arhat to suicide so it must depend on the individual’s situation
???Pls be responsible for your posting. We should not write anything which we are not sure of.
-
Originally posted by cycle:
???Pls be responsible for your posting. We should not write anything which we are not sure of.
AEN told me -
Originally posted by cycle:
???Pls be responsible for your posting. We should not write anything which we are not sure of.
-
Originally posted by extra one:
AEN told me
AEN pls enlighten us. -
Originally posted by extra one:
he encouraged one particular arhat to suicide cos the arhat has headaches or something that prevented enlightenment
Please describe the story details if you know . -
Originally posted by extra one:
AEN told meNo, the Buddha did not encourage him to commit suicide, but he did not stop him.
But please remember that an Arhat is a special case and has gone beyond the cycle of birth and death -- he achieves Nirvana right after his death. If we were to do the same thing we will cycle through samsara again according to our karma. If we kill ourselves and as a result commit negative karma and fall into the lower realms, then we have to reconsider carefully our actions.
The Case of Channa
The case of Channa[12] is the fullest account of a suicide in the Pali Canon. Damien Keown, editor of the Journal of Buddhist Ethics, has produced a detailed analysis of the sutta in an article entitled ‘The Case of Channa’.[13]
Saariputta, Mahaa Cunda and Channa are all living on Vulture’s Peak Mountain, and Channa is very ill. Saariputta suggests to Mahaa Cunda that they visit Channa to see how he is. They find him in a bad state with violent pains in his head and belly, and a burning fever, and his condition is steadily worsening. Channa ends a florid description of his symptoms by saying that he has no desire to live and will therefore ‘use the knife’.
Saariputta is obviously deeply affected. He offers to attend to Channa personally. ‘Let the venerable Channa not use the knife,’ he says, ‘let the venerable Channa live. We want the venerable Channa to live.’[14] But Channa declares that he lacks nothing, that he has worshipped the Teacher with love, and concludes, ‘Friend Saariputta, remember this: the Bhikkhu Channa will use the knife blamelessly’, implying that he is already an arahant and therefore cannot act unskilfully.[15]
Saariputta, however, is clearly not convinced about Channa, and proceeds to question him about his attainments, especially with respect to how Channa regards the six senses, and about self-view. Channa gives the answers that we would expect of an arahant: he is not attached to the six senses and doesn’t cling to any self-view. Saariputta further asks him how he came to these conclusions and Channa answers that he has ‘seen and directly known’ them – that is that they are the result of transcendental insight. Now Mahaa Cunda intervenes; it is clear that he too is not convinced by Channa’s words, and gives Channa some pithy advice on what insight and awakening are really about.
Shortly after Mahaa Cunda and Saariputta have left, Channa cuts his throat and dies. Saariputta then asks the Buddha about the circumstances of Channa’s rebirth. The Buddha, apparently surprised, reminds Saariputta that Channa said that he would ‘use the knife blamelessly’. Saariputta in response expresses his doubts by pointing out that Channa appeared to be blameworthy since he was attached to his family. The Buddha then echoes Channa’s own words to the effect that he was an arahant and his suicide was not an unskilful act.
There is an argument that that in the cases of Godhika, Vakkali, and Channa, the Buddha actually condones their suicides on the grounds that the three bhikkhus were arahants, incapable of acting unskilfully. Indeed, if we only had the suttas to go on we might come to this conclusion ourselves. However, as in Vakkali’s case, the commentaries once again argue that Channa has overestimated his attainment.
Keown is uneasy with the thought that the Buddha is seen to be condoning suicide because it seems out of context with the wider Buddhist reverence for life (c.f. comments on the Paayaasi sutta below). The interpretation relies on viewing ethics solely from the point of view of the motivations of the one who acts. Keown points out that if we look only at motivation then, for instance, murder could be carried out with impunity despite the victim not wanting to die. However, the consequences also need to taken into account. A person deprived of life will suffer and an act that leads to suffering is judged to be unskilful, even if it is carried out with no apparent ill will.
While the Buddha is not critical of either Godhika or Vakkali, it is only in the case of Channa that he appears to make an unequivocal statement exonerating suicide. He says of Channa:
‘Saariputta, when one lays down this body and clings to a new body, then I say that that one is blameworthy. There was none of that in the Bhikkhu Channa; the Bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly.’[16]
The first sentence of this statement is not related to suicide. It is clinging to a new body which is blameworthy. This could be read as the Buddha simply making use of a tragic situation to highlight a point of Dharma, much as we often do at funerals. The second sentence is the crux of the problem and to Keown it comes down to the difference between condoning an act and exonerating someone who acts. The Buddha was not making a generalised statement about the acceptability of suicide; he was exonerating Channa in this particular case. This weakens the case of those claiming that suicide amongst arahants is acceptable, and accords with the previous two cases.
A second point arises out of translation issues. Saariputta enquires about Channa’s next rebirth and the Buddha replies, ‘Saariputta, didn’t the Bhikkhu Channa declare to you his blamelessness (anupavajja).’[17] Keown suggests, on the basis of the commentary, that the word ‘anupavajja’ would be better translated in this context as ‘not being reborn’.[18] In this case Keown says, ‘I think that when we place the Buddha’s statement (quoted above) in context, we see that the Buddha is offering not an exoneration of suicide but a clarification of the meaning of anupavajja for Saariputta’s benefit.’[19]
Keown then moves onto the commentary, which informs us that Channa was not considered to be an arahant before his suicide, despite his claim.[20] He wonders why, given that the writers of the commentary could not have reconstructed events with any accuracy, they should have been at pains for us to know that Channa was not an arahant before he took the knife.
Keown offers three reasons why the commentary might have objected to us believing Channa’s claim. The first is that an arahant is said to be unable to kill a living being intentionally. ‘Death-dealing acts of any kind are certainly not in keeping with the canonical paradigm of a calm and serene Arhat.’[21] The second is Channa’s apparent inability to tolerate pain which ‘shows a lack of self-mastery unbecoming to an Arhat.’[22] The third is that it was possibly an attempt to distance the Buddhists from certain practices of other religious groups, especially the Jain practice of sallekhanaa, or fast to death (although, as we will see, this was not a concern for the Pali commentary to the Vinaya). The other aspect of the commentarial text is that it contains no discussion of the ethics of suicide and, in particular, no reference to the Vinaya rule that forbids suicide by monks.[23] Keown says, ‘By holding that Channa gained enlightenment only after he had begun the attempt on his life, the commentary neatly avoids the dilemma of an Arhat breaking the precepts.’[24]
With his analysis of the contextual and translation factors, Keown has weakened the case for believing that the Buddha condoned arahants committing suicide. By displaying an apparent abhorrence for such a belief, the authors of the Pali commentary weaken the case even further. However, the fact remains that in the three cases so far examined, these men did commit suicide and yet were not reborn.
In conclusion Keown says:
‘What Buddhism values is not death, but life … a person who opts for death believing it to be a solution to suffering has fundamentally misunderstood the First Noble Truth … what is significant is that through the affirmation of death he has, in his heart, embraced Maara.’ [25]
However, by focusing on only one of the three stories we’ve looked at, Keown has minimised the reinforcement that occurs with repetition. The fact is that not one but three arahants,or near-arahants, chose suicide and succeeded in attaining final Nibbaana. Also it is not clear whether, in taking their own lives, any of the three were affirming death. In the case of Godhika the opposite point seems to be being made: that he was not clinging to life! So while it seems clearly established that the Buddha is not lauding suicide, it is by no means clear that he is condemning it.
Immediately preceding this sutta in the Majjhima Nikaaya is the story of the death of the lay disciple Anaathapi.n.d.ika,[26] who describes the pains of his illness in identical terms to those used by Channa when he was visited by Saariputta. Saariputta gives him a profound discourse on not clinging to sense experience, nor to this world nor to the next world (i.e. rebirth), which moves Anathapi.n.d.ika to tears. He is not overwhelmed by despair as Saariputta fears, but with joy and gratitude at hearing such a profound discourse which, being a layman, he has never heard the like of before, even though he was a long time disciple of the Buddha and a stream entrant. He dies soon afterwards and is reborn in the Tu.sita heaven. Despite having identical pains, Anathapin.d.ika does not despair; does not even seem to contemplate suicide, even though, on the face of it, he is much less spiritually advanced than Channa. And yet he is reborn in a deva realm, which, while a very pleasant place to be, is still part of sa.msaara, still tinged with suffering: Channa, on the other hand, escapes suffering altogether.
Keown suggests that moha, or delusion, is the underlying cause of suicide, a failure to appreciate that death is the greatest suffering. As we have seen, according to the Buddhist tradition, death is a form of suffering, but Keown appears to overlook the evidence that he himself has presented. Death was not the greatest suffering for Channa, nor for Godhika, nor Vakkali. Indeed we might say that the opposite is true;
that for them the greatest suffering was living, and that their death at their own hands led to their final liberation from all suffering. We suffer at death only because we cling to life, to our bodies, to our personalities, to material possessions – but if we are not clinging to these things then death is not suffering. I think we have to conclude that for Channa, and the others, as for the Buddha and all the other arahants, death did not involve suffering.
-
So according to Buddhism, death is the final liberation of all sufferings. We suffer at death only because we cling to life, to our bodies, to our personalities, to material possessions – but if we are not clinging to these things then death is not suffering.
-
Originally posted by Ahm97sic:
So according to Buddhism, death is the final liberation of all sufferings. We suffer at death only because we cling to life, to our bodies, to our personalities, to material possessions – but if we are not clinging to these things then death is not suffering.
No, this is not what it meant. The Bhikkhu Channa in question is already an Arhat, that means he had attained liberation and nirvana, which means he has transcended the cycle of birth and death in Samsara. For example you and I have not attained enlightenment or Arhatship, so we should not think along the lines of Channa.For an Arhat, he will not take rebirth again after his life has ended, and will achieve nirvana (cessation). In this case the Buddha said he will take his knife blamelessly because he will not as a result create more karma that leads to rebirth.
In the case of suicide for non-liberated beings, the act of taking one's life is an act of killing and one's action will negative karma. Furthermore such a person will likely be in such a negative mental state that it is easy for him to enter into the lower realms such as the ghost realm.
In the case of Channa, if you look at the Sutta itself, the Buddha said:
ßSàriputta, there may be the families of venerable Channa's friends, well-wishers and earlier relatives, I say, there is no fault to that extent. Sàriputta, if someone gives up this body and seizes another, I say it is a fault. In the bhikkhu that fault is not apparent. Bhikkhu Channa took his life faultlessly.û
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima3/144-channovada-e.html