EEP Essay 20 November/December

Permissible Suicide in Early : A Resource for Modern Consideration

How does Buddhism the choice of committing suicide by a person suffering from overwhelming pain? Is it permissible, or is suicide never seen as an appropriate action to take? Does the first precept—the abstention from killing— refer only to killing other living beings, or does it include refraining from killing oneself? Is intentionally causing one’s own death different enough from killing other beings that these two acts should be viewed through different values and perspectives? The early discourses and classical commentaries only discuss the issue of suicide as it pertains to monastics. The issues to consider might be different for lay people, nonetheless, what these texts say about suicide in relation to monastics may be useful for lay Buddhists in their own negotiating of this issue. The suttas preserve three stories of monks experiencing intense physical pain who “used the knife”1, i.e., killed themselves.2 In each case, when the Buddha learned of their deaths he neither approved nor disapproved. Instead, he talked about the level of attainment they had achieved on the path to liberation. This raises the question of whether a person’s attainment has any bearing on the ethical nature of suicide. Is the suicide of a liberated person different from the suicide of someone who is not liberated? What might a Theravada Buddhist view on suicide be? Is suicide always akusala or might it sometimes be kusala? What Buddhist principles, values, attitudes, and understandings might form the basis on which a Buddhist might consider suicide an appropriate choice? In which ways might it be seen as an unfortunate or even malevolent choice?

1 satthaṃ āharesi; e.g., SN iii 123. 2 SN 4.23; 22.87; 35.87 and MN 144.

1 EEP Essay 20 November/December

Three Monastic Suicides

Of the three monks whose suicides the Buddha did not criticize, two were quite sick. When Venerable Vakkali is “gravely ill” and dying, he explains, “Strong painful feelings are increasing in me, not subsiding, and their increase, not their subsiding, is to be discerned.” Vakkali believes he is dying and asks to be moved outdoors to die there. The sutta does not indicate whether Vakkali is fully liberated; the evidence presented suggests that he is not, in part because the Buddha arranges for someone to deliver to the monk liberation teachings on the of the five aggregates. After Vakkali kills himself the Buddha declares he had attained final nibbāna. What is not clear is whether Vakkali was already fully enlightened, became so in hearing the liberation teaching, or was liberated as he was committing suicide. What is clear is that the Buddha did not disapprove of Vakkali’s suicide. Why? While it seems Vakkali was close to death when he killed himself, there is no mention that this was the case with Venerable Channa. However, when Sāriputta asks him how he was doing, Channa describes his pain in vivid detail. The description suggests his pain was greater than that of Vakkali:

I am not bearing up, I am not getting better. Strong painful feelings are increasing in me, not subsiding, and their increase, not their subsiding, is to be discerned. Just as if a strong man were to split my head open with a sharp sword, so too violent winds cut through my head. I am not bearing up.... Just as if a strong man were to tighten a tough leather strap around my head as a headband, so too there are violent pains in my head. I am not bearing up.... Just as if a skilled butcher or his apprentice were to carve up an ox’s belly with a sharp butcher’s knife, so too violent winds are carving up my belly. I am not bearing up.... Just as if two strong men were to seize a weaker man by both arms and roast him over a pit of hot coals, so too there is a violent burning in my body. I am not bearing up, I am not getting better. Strong painful feelings are increasing in me, not subsiding, and their increase, not

2 EEP Essay 20 November/December

their subsiding, is to be discerned. I will use the knife, friend Sāriputta, I have no desire to live.”3

Hearing this, Sāriputta attempts to dissuade Channa from committing suicide. To this Channa explains that he “will use the knife blamelessly.” The idea of being blameless suggests that Channa sees no fault in taking his own life. The reference to being blameless may be a word play that also means or implies he won’t be reborn again.4 This interpretation is supported by the Buddha’s statement, upon hearing of Channa’s suicide, that someone is blameworthy when one “lays down this body and takes up another body,” i.e., is reborn. This suggests that one reason Channa sees his suicide as blameless may be because he is liberated from ; in the language of the early suttas, he has “done what needed to be done.” He did not need to remain alive in hopes of furthering himself on the path of liberation. The third monk whose story of suicide appears in the suttas is Venerable Godhika. The account says nothing about his being sick. The Theravada commentary does explain he was sick, an explanation that may be a result of the commentator’s discomfort with Godhika’s suicide. Killing oneself because one is severely sick is easier for others to accept than when one is healthy. The context given for Godhika’s taking his own life is his inability to become fully liberated. The text states that six times he had attained a temporary form of liberation. Each time he then fell away from this attainment. As temporary liberation is short of full, permanent liberation, it seems Godhika was disappointed. This is a disappointment that can be understood differently if he was sick or elderly without the ability to continue practicing. If he was young and filled with vitality his disappointment would not seem to be the reason for committing suicide. After Godhika’s death, the Buddha goes to find the body. When he does, he declares that the monk had attained final nibbāna. This suggests that Godhika attained his full awakening as he was committing suicide. The Buddha neither

3 SN 35.87; Bodhi translation. 4 The word anupavajja can be understood as meaning both blameless and “not being reborn.” See Damien Keown, “Buddhism and Suicide: The Case of Channa” in Journal of , Vol 3 1996: 8-31 (available online).

3 EEP Essay 20 November/December approved nor disapproved of Godhika’s suicide. What was important for the Buddha was that Godhika was liberated. Perhaps the ethics of his suicide had become irrelevant.

Failing at Suicide but Succeeding at Liberation The suttas contain two stories of monastics who became fully enlightened in attempting suicide. One is found in the verses of the nun Sīhā, where she tells of her awakening. The verses do not indicate she had any remorse or self-blame for her attempted suicide. Importantly, there is also no defense or justification for her attempt.

Weak, pale, and colorless, I wandered for seven years. I suffered – not for a single day or night Did I know any ease. 79

Because of this I grabbed a rope, And entered the woods. “It is better to hang myself Then continue this despicable [life].” 80

I made a strong noose, Tied it to the branch of a tree And put it around my neck. Then my mind was freed! Verses 79-815

A similar story is recounted by the monk Sappadasa in his verses of liberation:

Twenty-five years since my going forth, and no peace of awareness —not a finger-snap’s worth— attained. Having gained no oneness of mind, I was wracked with lust. Wailing, with my arms upheld,

5 5.3; ’s translation.

4 EEP Essay 20 November/December

I ran amok from my dwelling— “Or... or shall I take the knife? What's the use of life to me? If I were to renounce the training, what sort of death would I have?” So, taking a razor, I sat down on a bed. The razor was drawn to cut my own vein. Thereupon wise attention arose in me, danger appeared, disenchantment calmly standing: With that, my heart was released. See the Dhamma’s true rightness! The three knowledges have been attained; the Awakened One's bidding, done.6

The reference to “danger appearing” most likely refers to a common insight in the suttas that focuses on the disadvantages of samsaric existence. For Sappadasa it may have functioned to show him the futility of suicide as he would simply be reborn again. In a sense, these two attempted suicides had happy outcomes. The two monastics express no disapproval or condemnation of their attempts. The moral nature of their attempted suicide is not considered. A common element in the three completed suicides and the two attempted one discussed above is that all the people involved either already were or subsequently became fully liberated. What role might awakening have in the appropriateness or acceptability of suicide, either one’s own or that of others?

The Buddha’s Negative View on Suicide Apart from these select episodes, the Buddha is clearly portrayed as disapproving of suicide by his monastic followers. He established the monastic rule

6 Theragāthā 6.6, verses 405-410. Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s translation.

5 EEP Essay 20 November/December prohibiting killing or in any way encouraging others to kill or commit suicide after some sixty monks committed suicide or arranged their own murder at the hands of someone else.7 These monks wished to end their lives due to a misunderstanding of the Buddha’s instruction to contemplate the unattractiveness of the body. While this contemplation was meant to remove their infatuation with their body, these monks became “troubled by their own bodies, ashamed of them, disgusted with them.” Their attitude is compared to how

a young woman—someone fond of adornments, who had just washed her hair—would be ashamed, humiliated, and disgusted if the carcass of a snake, a dog, or a man were hung around her neck; just so those monks were troubled by their own bodies.8

Learning of their death, the Buddha emphatically declared, “Monks, this is not appropriate for these monks, it is not proper, it is not worthy of an ascetic, it’s not allowable, it should not be done.” The Buddha followed this declaration by establishing the following rule: “Should any bhikkhu consciously deprive human beings of life, or search for an assassin for them, he is defeated and no longer in affiliation.” Even though this rule was prompted by the monks’ suicide, it, surprisingly, does not explicitly prohibit suicide. The Buddha later expanded this rule when corrupt monks convinced a man to commit suicide so he could enjoy a heavenly rebirth. The monks did this because they had become enamored of his wife and wanted the husband out of the way. The rule then became,

Should any bhikkhu consciously deprive a human being of life, or search for an assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death, or incite him to die (saying,): “My good man, what use is this evil, miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than life,” or with such an idea in mind, such a purpose in mind, should in

7 Bhikkhu of the (Vin iii 68). 8 Vin iii 68.

6 EEP Essay 20 November/December

various ways praise the advantages of death or incite him to die, he also is defeated and no longer in affiliation.

The rule prohibits monastics from any conscious encouragement of any particular person’s suicide—and this would include the modern practices of legally assisted suicide and euthanasia. Monastics who do so are automatically “defeated,” meaning they lose their monastic standing in the Buddhist monastic community. This is the most severe consequence the monastic community can impose on one who has committed an infraction of the rules. The above rule against killing clearly states that encouraging anyone to commit suicide is punishable by expulsion from the monastic order, i.e., one is “defeated”. As with the first version of the rule, the Buddha’s second formulation does not explicitly mention suicide itself; it only mentions the prohibition against encouraging others to take their own lives. In fact, the Vinaya does not view suicide as a major offense. Instead, suicide and attempted suicide are seen simply as “wrong conduct” (dukkaṭa), which do not lead to the expulsion of a monastic from the monastic order. The reason for this interpretation is that the Vinaya discusses a particular case where a distraught monk threw himself off a cliff. However, he landed on a person below who died; the monk survived. Hearing of this the Buddha said, “[M]onks, you should not throw yourself off anything. If you do, you commit an offense of wrong conduct.” Because the expression “throw off” (pātetabba) also means “to kill,” the Buddha’s statement is said to apply to suicide and attempted suicide. According to this interpretation, killing oneself is viewed differently from killing others. While it is still “wrong conduct” it is not as serious, at least within the rules of monastic life. Why this difference? Why is killing oneself not seen as a major offense? And conversely, why is it even an offense at all? The ancient Theravada tradition gives two general answers to justify its disapproval of suicide. The first is found in the Buddha’s rationale for establishing the monastic rules. The second are reasons given by two monastic teachers, one a direct disciple of the Buddha and another who lived a few centuries later.

7 EEP Essay 20 November/December

The Buddha’s Rationale for the Monastic Rules

The Vinaya recounts the particular circumstances that prompted the Buddha to establish the monastic rules. It also lists the Buddha’s reasons for doing so. He explained this as follows:

[M]onks, I will lay down a training rule for the monks for the following ten reasons:

1) For the well-being of the Order, 2) For the comfort of the Order, 3) For the restraint of bad people, 4) For the ease of well-behaved monks, 5) For the restraint of corruptions (āsava) in the present life, 6) For avoiding corruptions in future lives, 7) To give rise to confidence in those without it, 8) To increase the confidence of those who have it, 9) For the continuation of the true Teaching, 10) For supporting the training.9

None of these reasons concern the ethical nature of suicide itself, the moral status of the person who commits suicide, or the intention behind it. Rather they focus on the beneficial consequences for following the monastic rules, all of which concern improving optimal conditions for people to grow in the . Of the ten rationales, numbers 5, 6, and 10 focus on the continued training and growth of an individual monastic who might consider suicide. The monastic is better off continuing to train than committing suicide. The other seven rationales are interpersonal; one would refrain from suicide because of the detrimental impact it would have on others.

9 Translated by Bhikkhu Brahmali at Suttacentral.org (Vin iii 1)

8 EEP Essay 20 November/December

The Rationale Against Suicide by Later Disciples of the Buddha

The Collection of Long Discourses () contains a debate between a prince and the monk Kumāra-Kassapa.10 Among the challenges the prince presents is the following question: Why shouldn’t virtuous ascetics and Brahmins kill themselves with poison, a knife, or jumping off a cliff so they can reap the good karmic results of their virtuous life?11 Assumed, as part of this question, is that virtuous people will be reborn in heaven or in very fortunate human circumstance. Kassapa answers with a parable of a pregnant woman who needs to know if her child is a boy or girl to determine an inheritance. If it is a boy, he would receive half of his father’s inheritance; if it is a girl, she would receive nothing. Because of the pressure of needing to know, the woman took a knife to open up her belly to find out. In doing so she “destroyed herself, the embryo, and the [possible] wealth.” Applying this parable to the prince’s question, Kassapa states,

[T]hose ascetics and Brahmins who observe morality and are well- conducted do not seek to hasten the ripening of that which is not ripe, but rather they wisely await its ripening. Life [continues to] benefit those ascetics and Brahmins, for the longer they live the more they create. They [thus] practice for the welfare of many, for the happiness of many, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit and welfare of devas and humans.

For the ascetics and Brahmins themselves, Kassapa claims they are better off continuing to ripen what is not come to fruition.. In Buddhist terms this means to continue ripening on the path of liberation. This raises the question whether Kassapa’s parable would also apply to those who are fully liberated. Kassapa also emphasizes the value of staying alive so those who are virtuous can benefit others. He clearly sees greater value in benefiting others than in having a pleasant rebirth for oneself.

10 DN 21. 11 DN 21.12-13 (iii 330-333).

9 EEP Essay 20 November/December

The second monk who provides a rationale against suicide also evokes the value of living for the benefit of others. This teaching is found in the Questions of Milinda (Milindapañha), a purported record of conversations between King Milinda and Venerable Nāgasena a few centuries after the Buddha. In this book, the king raises an issue around the Buddha’s statement, “[M]onks, you should not throw yourself off anything/kill yourself. If you do, you commit an offense of wrong conduct.” The king contrasts this with the following statement he has heard from other Buddhist monastics:

On whatsoever subject the Blessed One was addressing the disciples, he always, and with various similes, preached to them in order to bring about the destruction of birth, of old age, of disease, and of death. And whosoever overcame birth, old age, disease, and death, him did he honor with the highest praise.

The king sees these two statements as contradictory; if one is right, the other must be wrong. The king’s dilemma seems to be based on the idea that ending birth, old age, disease, and death is a kind of suicide. In response, Nāgasena presents the idea that the Buddha prohibited monastics from committing suicide so that they could be of benefit to many people. This he states in a somewhat poetic speech:

Someone who is observant in sīla, who is accomplished in sīla is an antidote that destroys the poison of people’s defilements, medicine that relieves the sickness of people’s defilements, water that forces out the mud of people’s defilements, a precious jewel that gives people all forms of fortune, a boat for people to cross the four floods, a caravan leader to cross the wilderness of birth, a wind that extinguishes the heat of the threefold fires, a great cloud that fills people’s minds, a teacher training people in what is wholesome, an advisor who shows people the path to peace. With many good qualities, numerous good qualities, immeasurable good qualities, this person observant in sīla [wishes] that people’s mass of good qualities, heap of good qualities not perish; this is why the Buddha out of compassion for beings, declared the training rule, “monks, you

10 EEP Essay 20 November/December

should not throw yourself off anything/kill yourself. If you do, you commit an offense of wrong conduct.” This is the reason the Buddha prohibited [suicide].12

Nāgasena ends his speech with a mention of Venerable Kassapa’s teachings, mentioned above, that one should stay alive for the benefit of others.

Permissible Monastic Suicides

The Buddha seems to have prohibited monastics from committing suicide, yet as we have seen above, he did not disapprove of three monks who had done so. The later commentary on the Vinaya offers explicit situations when a monastic can permissibly end their life. After first emphasizing that a monastic should not commit suicide,13 the text next lists the allowable circumstances:

1. If the caretaking monastics are weary, dismayed, and afraid that they might [unintentionally] free the sick monastic from the sickness, then it is acceptable for one who is greatly ill for a long time [who thinks] “this body being cared for is not enduring, and the monastics are wearied,” to stop eating and taking medicine.

2. It is acceptable for someone who [thinks], “This sickness is intense, the life-forces are not persisting, and this special [meditative] attainment of mine is seen as if I can put my hand on it” to stop [eating].

3. It is acceptable for someone who is not ill, who has a strong sense of urgency [in practice] and who [thinks], “the search for food is an obstacle. I will just continue meditating” to stop eating while meditating.14

12 Milindapañha 4.4.5 (Mil i 195-196). 13 The text states, “Not only is (oneself) not to be ‘cast off,’ also by whatever other means, even by stopping eating, one is not to kill oneself; when someone who is sick, when there is medicine and caretakers, wishes to die and stops taking food, this is wrong conduct.” 14 Vin A 467.

11 EEP Essay 20 November/December

If stopping to eat is seen as a form of suicide, the first acceptable form of suicide by a monastic is out of concern for the toll their illness is taking on their caretakers. The second acceptable form of suicide probably is for the purpose of dying in the best possible state of mind for a favorable rebirth. It is better to die with a state of mind that is almost liberated than it is to lose this state because one is dying slowly. The third acceptable form of suicide—if this is what it can be called—is to die because one is too busy meditating to eat. Here there is no intention to die; one is occupied with something more important than having the wish to live or the wish to do what is required to live. This last permissible way of dying shows the tremendous value the early Buddhist tradition puts on the pursuit of liberation.

Non-monastic Considerations for Suicide

As with monastics, lay Buddhists may be intensely ill, with death close by, with no hope for improvement. What reflections and understandings might they consider in deciding whether or not to end their lives? In what circumstances might they find it acceptable to end their lives or to approve a loved one ending their life? What wise reasons might keep someone who is sick and in pain from committing suicide? One set of considerations is the effect one’s suicide will have on others. Among the many reasons the Buddha established the monastic rules was “to give rise to confidence in those without it, and to increase the confidence of those who have it.” The word translated as “confidence” is pasāda that also means clearness, joy, and serenity. Sometimes it is understood as a form of faith or inspiration that contains some of the qualities of a liberated mind. As such, it is connected to a deep and meaningful state. Someone who is contemplating suicide might consider how and if their suicide might increase people’s pasāda or decrease it. Which provides the best long-term inspiration and lesson for others: how one remains alive while ill or how one relinquishes one’s life peacefully?

12 EEP Essay 20 November/December

One can also consider the toll on one’s caretakers when one stays alive. Will the financial costs of prolonging life cause excessive problems for them? Will the caretaking go on for so long that it will have detrimental effects on the caretakers? Are they exhausted? Might it be compassionate to hasten one’s death by refusing to eat? Another set of considerations is the consequences for oneself if one stays alive or if one chooses one’s time to die. What state of mind does one wish to have while dying? Does one want to remain clearly conscious right up to the moment of death? Or would one rather be kept medically alive in a semi-conscious or perhaps unconscious state? Does one value the opportunity to practice onward on the path of liberation regardless of the pain one experiences or the cloudiness of mind that might appear? No matter what, one might wish to give whatever last efforts one can to practice, perhaps because of the paramount value one places on practicing for liberation. One could also consider the effect one’s state of mind has on one’s dying and on any future rebirth that may occur. If the motivation for ending one’s life is based on unwholesome states of mind, this may have deleterious consequences. For example, the Buddha clearly viewed suicide negatively when done by an angry person who is distraught. It is an act that destroys or ruins a person. He stated in verse:

Like oneself, all beings hold themselves most dear, yet an angry person, deranged, can kill oneself in many ways: with a sword, taking poison, hanging oneself by a rope in a mountain glen. Doing these deeds that kill beings and do violence to oneself, the angry person doesn't realize that he's ruined.15

15 AN 7.64; adapted from translation by Bhikkhu Thanissaro.

13 EEP Essay 20 November/December

Elsewhere the Buddha recounts a horrific story of a husband who was about to lose his wife. He first kills her and then himself so they can be together after death. The Buddha described this as involving sorrow and grief arising from attachment to others. To commit suicide under the influence of anger, sorrow, or fear neither benefits one’s caregivers, family, or friends, nor does it contribute to a peaceful death. To work through these emotions to arrive at a or mind that is at peace is worthwhile. Such peace may be what is needed before suicide becomes a wholesome option.

Conclusion A central concern in the Buddha’s teachings is the growth of kusala states and the decrease of akusala states. This concern can usefully be applied in considering one’s own suicide, both medically assisted or self-administered. Is one’s thinking and one’s decision kusala? Is it conducive to the growth of more kusala states in oneself and others? And is the manner in which the suicide will be done kusala with kusala results? In the discussions the Buddha or the early Buddhist tradition had about suicide, nothing is said about preserving the sanctity of human life. That suicide by a monastic can be considered a minor offense in comparison to the major offense of killing someone else or encouraging others to commit suicide suggests that a personal choice for oneself is looked upon differently than choosing death for someone else. Ordinarily, people do not choose to be killed; to kill someone is therefore to disrespect or “steal” their ability for self-determination. When someone decides to commit suicide they are clearly exercising their self- determination. While a monastic who commits suicide may be committing an offense, it is not an offense against one’s ability to make choices for oneself. In Buddhism it is not just each person’s ability to choose for one self that is valued; even more valuable is one’s ability to choose wisely and skillfully. If one considers suicide, it is invaluable to do this with as much wisdom and skillfulness as one can.

14