Secondly, a definition of suicide in itself SUICIDE AND will not be attempted - beyond stating that I refer to the deliberate self-inflicted death for no other (worldly) reason than putting an BUDDHISM end to a life and everything therein. Issues concerning whether feeding one's body to Struan Hellier a hungry tigress (as in Jatakamala) or the Jain tradition of fasting to death constitute Introduction suicide, will not be discussed here as space The issue of suicide within any religious is limited. tradition raises basic questions about the value of human life and the freedom of Suicide and the Arhat/Non-Arhat division the individual to take control of the most Harran, writing in Mircea Eliade's fundamental and unavoidable end of living: Encyclopaedia of Religion points towards death itself. For Buddhism, the problem the equivocal treatment of suicide in is not as clearly delineated as it is for Buddhism, stating: "Buddhism, in its Christianity - which Professor Markham various forms affirms that, while suicide describes as, "virtuously unanimous in as self sacrifice may be appropriate for considering suicide as sin'M Of the three the person who is an arhat, one who has clear cases of suicide reported in the Pali attained enlightenment, it is still very much Canon, the case of Channa seems to be the the exception to the rule." 2 most widely used to demonstrate Buddhist Carl Becker, commenting upon the suicide ambivalence on the subject. For this reason of the monks Channa and Vakkali, refers - and because it gives the best evidence of to "the Buddha's praise of the suicides" the Buddha's accord with this act -1 will and claims that this 'praise' is based upon focus on this case alone. the fact that, ".. .their minds were selfless, desireless and enlightened at the moment

I intend to show that the majority of of their passing." 3 Whilst I disagree with Buddhists and scholars of Buddhism Becker regarding the Buddha's praising of take the view that suicide is wrong for these suicides (and I will shortly show why) the unelightentened but acceptable for this does give us an insight into the reasons the Arhat and I will examine the reasons why there is a division in morality between why this is so. I will then show why the suicidal act of an arhat and a non-arhat. this causes tension with other aspects of In 1987, Etienne Lamotte wrote: Buddhist thought before moving on to "The desperate person who takes his own an examination of objective grounds for life obviously aspires to annihilation: his believing all suicide to be wrong when suicide, instigated by desire, will not omit looked at in the context of Buddhist him from fruition and he will have to teachings and values. partake in the fruit of his action. In the case of the ordinary man, suicide is folly and

There are complications here. Firstly, in does not achieve the intended aim." 4 reducing a complex and varied religion to the reports in the Pali Canon without The position is summed up by Wiltshire bringing in thousands of years of contextual who commented that "suicide is salvifically and cultural variation I am in danger of [sic] fatal in most cases, but not for the over simplification. My search, however, arahant since he cannot be motivated by is restricted to looking for grounds for an desire."5 and this position is demonstrated objective belief in the immorality of suicide further by my own research amongst within the Pali Canon and not to presume Buddhist newsgroups on the internet where a binding ethical position to which all the unanimous response to my inquiries was Buddhists should adhere. fundamentally the same as the views expressed by the scholars I have quoted. - or indeed any other practical ethic - is that the gravity of a crime would seem to We must therefore conclude that the be directly proportional to the amount of majority view is that there is nothing wrong passion or desire present in the mind of the per se in the act of suicide, but that the perpetrator. In this scenario, the murder of morality of the act is entirely dependent an abusive, drunken husband in a rage of upon the motivation and state of mind of fury (for example) would be far worse than the person who commits the act. In other the cold-blooded, dispassionate execution words, morality in the case of suicide is of a person by a contract killer. In Buddhist purely subjective. as well as Western countries, the opposite is deemed to be true. The tension between this position and Buddhism There is also another reason why suicide This idea that the individual's state of mind would have to be given the special status is the defining factor of morality seems of the arhat/non-arhat division if it is to to lead to conclusions which are contrary be maintained: the Buddhist tradition of to Buddhist doctrine, when applied to imitating the enlightened ones in everything. other issues. Keown6 gives the example This exhortation covers all aspects of the that this hard and uncompromising form life and thought of the enlightened ones who of subjectivism would mean that the are striving to be like their masters - and it wrongness of murder lies solely in the is not clear why suicide should be the only perpetrator's desire to kill, which ignores exception to this rule. the objective dimension of the act: that an injustice is done to someone insofar For these reasons, the theory that the as a person is deprived of his life. This state of mind in suicide is definitive in formulation of subjectivism actually ignores ascertaining its morality within Buddhism the act itself and only takes account of the appears to be on weak ground. In the final actor. In this way, it is only the desire part of this essay, I propose to show that which is wrong and not the suicide or accounts of the Buddha's 'praise' of suicide murder itself. The inescapable conclusion are inconsistent with the primary texts. of this line of argument is therefore that From this base I will put forward objective someone who murders without desire does grounds for the immorality of suicide with nothing wrong. Buddhism.

One could argue here that it is impossible to The Buddha and suicide murder without desire and yet if an arhat is The facts of the Buddhist monk Channa's able to commit suicide without desire (as is suicide are very straightforward. He had claimed) there seems no theoretical reason an incurable disease which caused him why that same arhat could not murder immense pain and suffering. He killed without desire which - as my incursions himself believing - perhaps falsely - that into Buddhist internet newsgroups assure he had reached parinirvana (see Schumann me - is absurd. This point does involve a 1982 7). He also believed that he had no linkage between suicide and murder which further purpose on earth and that therefore some may object to and yet the similarities all further suffering was pointless. His are strong: both involve violence and death last words to his friend Sariputta were, and both can (as in the case of euthanasia) "remember this: the monk Channa will use involve compassion. For this reason the the knife blamelessly." After uttering these point has some force. words he killed himself. The central issue here is whether Channa was an arhat at the Another objection to this subjectivist time he decided to commit suicide. He position as compatible with Buddhism seems to claim that he was and yet that does not mean that this was the case. It also this presumption. We are then told that doesn't seem to be the opinion of the early Channa achieved enlightenment at the point commentators on the Pali Canon - as I will of death and was thus a samasisin (equal demonstrate. headed one). There is a long tradition of sudden enlightenment at the point of death Becker, Keown and Wiltshire all agree that within the Buddhist tradition and this the case of Channa gives the best evidence interpretation throws a different light upon that the Buddha condoned suicide and the case of Channa which the traditional keown cites the particular passage that is interpretations discussed here fail to take used to show permission. The Buddha said: into account. "For whoso Sariputta, lays down one body and takes up another body, of him I say, In saying that Channa was not an arhat 'he is to blame'. But not so with brother until the point of death, those who suggest Channa. Without reproach was the knife that suicide is wrong for a non-arhat would used by the brother ChannaP have to accept that Channa was wrong to commit the act. It is at least probable that Here we can see the roots of the current in the conception and execution of the act majority position outlined earlier. One he was not an arhat and this temporal issue initial comment is that saying his action is crucial to the following conclusions. is "without reproach" is not necessarily the same thing as condoning the act and Conclusions is certainly not the "praising" referred to We have arrived at the point where the by Carl Becker. Keown draws a useful conclusion that suicide by an arhat is parallel here with Christ's reaction to the acceptable to Buddhism, has become adulterous woman, defending her with unjustifiable with regards to the teachings the words, "Neither do I condemn thee." of the Buddha as reported in the Pali Clearly Christ intends not to condone Canon. The prime example of an arhat adultery but to show compassion to a committing suicide (Channa) turns out to sinner. Compassion is one of the central be not the suicide of an arhat, but instead doctrines of Buddhism and it is at least as the actions of an unenlightened man who likely that the Buddha was exonerating can stand the pain of life no more. He was Channa rather than condoning suicide in a only to become enlightened at the point of paradigmatically similar fashion to Christ death and thus, his enlightened 'self was with the adulteress. exonerated of responsibility. It was the old, flawed Channa who committed the act and The commentary accompanying the main the old, flawed Channa who was wrong to text of the story of Channa in the Pali do as he did. Canon attempts to make sense of this death in the following ways. (I am relying here The point here is that there is evidence to upon Damien Keown's account, as I have suggest that no arhat has committed suicide been unable to locate an English translation and that those who point to Channa are of the primary source.) misled if they use his death to substantiate such a claim. Therefore, although an It is suggested that Channa, because he was enlightened person may be able to commit unable to bear the pain of the illness, could suicide in an a priori sense, we have no not have been enlightened when he decided empirical evidence to support the view that to take his own life. There is clearly a he or she might do so. The argument is problem in the view that an enlightened therefore no more substantial than a claim person, having escaped from suffering, that an arhat can blamelessly murder, or could be subservient to pain and so the blamelessly use a nuclear device on an commentary seems justified in innocent population. This may be true as his greater insight into nature could allow him 4 Lamotte, E. Religious suicide in early such a course of action, but I suspect that no Buddhism. Buddhist Studies Review 1987. Buddhist would claim that this is the case. 4/2: 105-118

5 Wiltshire, M. G. The 'suicide' problem in This interpretation is consistent with the Pali Canon. Journal of the International Buddhist doctrine in a way that others are Association of Buddhist Studies, 1983. not. Indeed, the First Precept shows that 6:124-140 the taking of any human life is the gravest 6 Keown, D. Buddhism: A Very Short offence a Buddhist can commit.8 Further, Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University the third parajika is clearly against suicide, Press, 1996. abetting suicide and commending death by 7 Schumann, H. W. The Historical Buddha. suicide 9; and the principle of ahimsa (non• London: Arkana 1982. injury) is clearly shattered by any act of 8 Saddhatisa, H. Buddhist Ethics. Boston: violence - including suicide. Wisdom 1970.

9 Nakasone, R. Y. Ethics of Enlightenment. Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude Freemont: Dharma Cloud Publishers, 1990. that rather than the morality of suicide being subjective there is a great deal of Struan Hellier is Head of Religious Studies evidence to support the contrary view, at Shrewsbury School in Shropshire. This namely that there is some feature of the act article originally appeared on his website itself which marks it out as morally suspect. at www.shellier.co.uk and is reprinted here by kind permission of Struan Hellier. Buddhism sees death not as an end to life, but merely as a transition to another life. "It will generally be found that as soon Anyone who thinks of death as an end to as the terrors of life reach the point suffering has misunderstood the First Noble where they outweigh the terrors of death, Truth, which clearly states that death itself a man will put an end to his life. But is one of the most basic aspects of suffering the terrors of death offer considerable and that in this way it is the problem, not resistance; they stand like a sentinel at the the solution. An arhat will not commit gate leading out of this world. Perhaps suicide because he cannot wish for death there is no man alive who would not have (or life). When death comes, it comes and already put an end to his life, if this end can only be met with indifference otherwise had been of a purely negative character, the arhat has revealed himself to be less a sudden stoppage of existence. There than enlightened. is something positive about it; it is the destruction of the body; and a man If, like Channa, the person who commits shrinks from that, because his body is the suicide gains enlightenment at the point of manifestation of the will to live... death then his good fortune will not require him to go through the suffering of another Suicide may also be regarded as an life, regardless of the objective immorality experiment - a question which man puts of his act. to Nature, trying to force her to answer. The question is this: What change will References death produce in a man's existence and 1 Markham. The Times newspaper 14 May in his insight into the nature of things 1998. ? It is a clumsy experiment to make, for 2 Eliade, M. Encyclopaedia of Religion. it involves the destruction of the very New York: Macmillan, 1987. consciousness which puts the question 3 Becker, C. B. Buddhist views of suicide and awaits the answer." and euthanasia. Philosophy East and West. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) 1990;40:544-556