Are Arahants really not perfect?

Q & A
1

This is something that’s been sitting on my mind for a long time about the Arahant, Channa who committed su*cide and the Buddha saying that his death was blameless, perhaps because he was an Arahant ?

I thought Arahants were not supposed to commit misdeeds, be it killing or theft or lying.

Or does the law of Kamma no longer apply to those who became Arahants ? Giving them the license to do whatever they want ?

I was always under the assumption that Arahants no longer suffered, as in they did not experience said suffering or were able to tune it out or outright ignore any physical afflictions ?

Channa killing himself does not only go against the obvious rule of not k*lling anyone, it goes against DP90 and DP95, which says arahants are “sorrowless” and “unattached” from the physical world.

2

Please use the Search function to check the many threads on this topic. It has been extensively discussed many times before. For example,
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/suicide-cases-in-the-suttas-and-the-authenticity-early-late-etc-of-the-texts/2816
:folded_hands:

2 Likes
3

I am not questioning the authenticity of the scriptures, though I’m aware just like all other religious scriptures, the Pali Canon would not have been immune from interpolation.

That thread does not have any conclusion to this either.

I want to know if what Channa did in this instance went against Arahanthood. I haven’t seen any thread that discussed something like this, but if you’ve found one, let me know.

In no universe, would wanting to k*ll yourself because of physical afflictions be a wholesome desire. But then again, DP 97 says that Arahants discard all desires, good or bad, so this event of su*cide by an Arahant who “wanted” to end his suffering, despite “Arahants” being supposedly “ unconditionally free”(DP 92/93) is all the more confusing.

Edits:

Perhaps the whole ludicrousness of this story can be further illustrated by some comical dialogue:

Ananda: Oh Exalted one, I have to inform you that the Venerable Arahant, Channa, stole a pack of gum and some diet coke from the local store.

The Buddha:Oh Ananda, don’t you know that Channa is now an Arahant and hence killing, stealing etc are blameless now ?

Ananda:Oh Exalted one ! Are you telling me being an Arahant gives you the license to commit misdeeds without any Kammic consequences ?

The Buddha: If you know, you know.

Writing this just gave me another query, if bloody wars were fought between armies composed of nothing but Arahants, I suppose the whole affair would be blameless now ?

Imagine dedicating to your life to not performing misdeeds, purifying and cleansing the mind etc etc, only to then k*ll yourself because of some bodily affliction. If Arahants are still susceptible to what plagues ordinary people and are still capable of doing things such as killing etc, then why exactly are they considered to be “perfect” then ? What is “perfection” then ?

This whole story of Channa seems to go against everything that The Buddha taught.

4

Yes, that’s right Channa was an arahant. In the SN 35.87 we can see what the Buddha said about the blameless/blameworthy:

When someone lays down this body and takes up another body, I call them ‘blameworthy’.

So because Channa was not destined to take up another body (be reborn), he was blameless.

That fundamental difference between an arahant and an non-arahant, (i.e. that the arahant has already ended any future rebirths) gives the arahant more options and better judgement when faced with difficult dilemmas in end of life scenarios.

So for a non-arahant to end their own life would perhaps be seen as pointless at best, and even could be counterproductive in terms of developing the the noble eightfold path. That is, they’ll just get reborn again and quite possibly in a realm that is not as conducive to developing the noble eightfold path as the one they just left. This is not to judge the non-arahant, who finds that they can no longer tolerate their own suffering. But essentially they are rolling the dice on what their next rebirth might be—and the odds are not good.

The arahant on the other hand has already secured the ending of saṁsāra, so no more rebirth.

Yes, that’s correct. Any kamma that is performed by an arahant will not bring about a future rebirth. This is because craving has been eliminated for the arahant.

In a AN 3.76 we have a simile:

“So, Ānanda, deeds are the field, consciousness is the seed, and craving is the moisture. The consciousness of sentient beings—shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving—is established in a lower [any of the] realm[s]. That’s how there is regeneration into a new state of existence in the future.

So for an arahant, no longer “shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving” there is no rebirth into any realm. There is no moisture (craving) to water the seed (consciousness) that is sown in field (kamma). So no future lives come about.

Yes, sure. They can do what they want, but now they are acting from a position of understanding rather than a position where they are “shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving” like the rest of us. Their decision making process is consequently so much better.

In SN 36.6 the Buddha explains:

“Mendicants, an unlearned ordinary person feels pleasant, painful, and neutral feelings. A learned noble disciple also feels pleasant, painful, and neutral feelings. What, then, is the difference between a learned noble disciple and an ordinary unlearned person?”

The Buddha describes two types of (painful) feeling: physical and mental.

When the “unlearned ordinary person” experiences painful physical feelings, they also experiences a corresponding painful mental feeling. Whereas the “learned noble disciple” only experiences the painful physical feeling.

So painful physical feelings are experienced by the arahant, but they do not react to physical pain with a craving for the pain to go away and with a craving for sensual indul­gence in order to be distracted from the painful condition they find themselves in. This ensures that they make informed decisions when faced with difficult dilemmas in end of life scenarios.

1 Like
5

Some observations about the problem you brought up (that an arahant is not perfect, or that an arahant may commit suicide):

1 — First, it is necessary to demonstrate that Channa, Vakkali, Godhika and other people declared to be arahants were already enlightened before the suicidal act, because this is debatable.

Buddhist Outlook on Daily Life by Nina van Gorkom

In the ‘Channovada-sutta’ mentioned above we read that the monk Channa suffered severe pains. As he could not stand the pains any longer he committed suicide. The Buddha knew that before the moment of his death Channa had kusala cittas after the akusala cittas which moved him to perform this unwholesome deed. He was able to purify himself of defilements after his deed. The Buddha said therefore: ‘He took the knife to himself without incurring blame.’

— Second, the Buddha gave definitions of what an arahant cannot do— AN9.7:

an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these nine principles.
[1] to intentionally deprive a living being of life.
[2] to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given.
[3] to engage in sexual intercourse.
[4] to tell a conscious lie.
[5] to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder.
[6] to follow a bias based on desire.
[7] to follow a bias based on aversion.
[8] to follow a bias based on delusion.
[9] to follow a bias based on fear.

And what they can do— AN3.87:

Take another case of a mendicant who has fulfilled their ethics, immersion, and wisdom. They break some lesser and minor training rules, but are restored. Why is that? Because I don’t say they’re incapable of that. But they’re constant and steady in their precepts regarding the training rules that are fundamental, befitting the spiritual path. They keep the rules they’ve undertaken. They realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life. And they live having realized it with their own insight due to the ending of defilements.

It is possible to note that, in the first list, items 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 rule out suicide (which is not the same as relinquishing the life faculty), and that items 2, 6, and 8 rule out an arahant stealing from a local store (since taking what is not given is a major rule whose violation may lead to expulsion from the Saṅgha).

Achieving arahantship does not give anyone a license to behave badly, because bad behavior becomes impossible in the first place.

Regarding the breaking of minor rules: that may seem like a sign of imperfection, but—as AN 3.87 states—arahants are perfect in terms of ethics, concentration, wisdom, and the fundamentals of the spiritual life. Anything else is optional, except for a Sammāsambuddha.

1 Like
6

I thought about this situation and I have some comments about it.

  1. First, we need to discern between the desire who is the cause of suffering, and wanting things purely. The Buddha wanted to expound the Dhamma, and he did. This is not the desire who causes suffering.

  2. Second of all, and to answer your inquiry with the conclusion I had: when you become an Arahant, you are not attached to life too. So, I’m imagining his condition was so painful that he would have to spend all his life on the senseless jhana and above to survive. In this way, to stay alive would require much more effort and would strain his body further.

I would use this point made by @stu to end my comment. And like stu said too, they can do what they want without consequences, so they can steal like in your example without making kamma, but it would not make no sense at all to do that. I think it would be like stealing a cup of sand in their heads :thinking: