If arahants are free from rebirth, but still suffer, why we don't see a widespread account of arahants ending their lives prematurely in the suttas?

Discussion
1

The goal of the Buddhist path is to be free from suffering. Arahants are free from future birth, but are supposedly not free from dukkha. In order to fulfill the Buddhist path, why didn’t they resort to ending their lives prematurely? There is no possibility for them to be reborn again.

If arahants are indeed not free from suffering, then we would see them committing suicide right and left in the suttas, but instead we have a single vague record of ven. Channa ending his life blamelessly in the Channasutta. For me this discrepancy is better explained by the fact that arahants are indeed free from suffering, although I am ready to reconsider this position.

2

Channa was gravely suffering. Other Arahants can live in bliss comparable to that of heavenly pleasures. On top of it, they can teach other junior monks.

1 Like
3
  1. Extinction is more blissful than living with the five aggregates.
  2. Not all arahants are keen on teaching others.
4

We have more than that. There is a Sutta where a big part of the Sangha commit suicide (somebody help with the title/number). Mass suicide has been a recent issue in some Buddhist circles. You may want to be sensitive when addressing this topic.

I think that suicide means giving in. It is the ultimate attachment, unless commited by an arahant in absolutely helpless circumstances. Suicide is not the “middle way”. It is to some extent the pinnacle of asceticism. And it brings Dukkha over yourself and others, especially. That’s the way I see it.

5

Buddhism isn’t only about ending suffering. Do not fear life. All the best regards.

Plus, ending one’s life prematurely causes the suffering of many others, and restarts the suffering of one’s own, despite what spiritual plateau one thinks one’s on.

1 Like
6

We have more than that. There is a Sutta where a big part of the Sangha commit suicide (somebody help with the title/number).

Were they arahants?

unless commited by an arahant in absolutely helpless circumstances

Why it has to be only in the absolutely helpless circumstances? What justifies suicide in such cases but not in others?

7

Arahants have knowledge and conduct.
What is praiseworthy blameless conduct?
Such that does not lead to suffering to themselves nor others.

I’d be more interested to know, why Channa could not be healed instead - do Arahants not have power to heal their body even thou they can multiply it countless times, or dive through ground etc or they are not allowed to do so (eg.: bearing result of past kamma).

8

I don’t know. But depending on the specifics of your belief or non-belief in rebirth, this subject also could extend to non-arahants.

So this is just my 5 cents, but: How can you claim to be completely liberated and still have to revert to suicide? You are obviously not liberated if you do. On the contrary, you are in the grip of Dukkha, completely determined by in it your decision.

Channa was in acute pain and was going to die anyway. Also, from the rumours spread about him in the Sutta, there seems to have been some doubt concerning his Arahant status. Still the Buddha did clear him, expressing that he was blameless numerous times - this necessity by itself pointing at some special circumstances IMO.

9

On the contrary, you are in the grip of Dukkha, completely determined by in it your decision.

But according to many Buddhists, arahants are indeed in the grip of dukkha, just a little bit less than the ordinary people. Also, isn’t your statement true about any person following the Buddhist path, i.e. that he is driven by suffering (desire to end it)?

10

I would have to think a little longer for a good answer to these questions. And as I said, these represent only my personal reflection.

As does the following. Let me take you to SN 1.1:

Then, late at night, a glorious deity, lighting up the entire Jeta’s Grove, went up to the Buddha, bowed, stood to one side, and said to him, “Good sir, how did you cross the flood?”
“Neither standing nor swimming, sir, I crossed the flood.”
“But in what way did you cross the flood neither standing nor swimming?”
“When I stood still, I went under. And when I swam, I was swept away. That’s how I crossed the flood neither standing nor swimming.”

(This is, by the way, the vey opening Sutta of SN, the collection viewed by many as the doctrinally most important.)

What is meat by this simile? IMO the swimming stands for embracing life in delusion, indulging in it to the fullest. This could IMO also be the higher meaning of “greed” in “greed, hatred and delusion”.

The opposite: Standing. Getting overwhelmed by Dukkha, revolt against life. Asceticism leading to mental anguish and ultimately, suicide. The higher meaning of the “hatred”.

By both actions equally you fall pray to the flood. Liberation is the middle way.

Another line of thought: When commiting suicide, someone will have to find you and clean up the mess. Your family and friends will suffer. Or you will botch the attempt and possibly live the rest of your life in terrible Dukkha. Now if that is not bad kamma, then what is? Arahants are said to be unable to produce bad kamma. How do you reconcile this?

Again, these are just some initial thoughts, not a coherent interpretation of Dhamma. But I sincerely hope that they are enough to make you or anybody thinking of suicide pause.

11

No. They were trainee monks who had practiced the wrong way, taking asubha meditation to the extreme.

This is the origin story.

As a result the Buddha laid down the vinaya rule against suicide. He also recommended Anapanasati to be practiced(SN 54.9).

The rationale for why suicide is prohibited even though life as such might be viewed as dukkha is discussed further in Mil 5.4.5

The distinction between physical pain (dukkha vedana) and suffering (dukkha) is clarified in SN36.6 and SN12.51 amongst others and discussed further in Mil 3.2.4

4 Likes
12

Thank you Doc - you’re every inch a Doc :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes
13

Would we?

One part of mundane right view is the proposition:

“There are good and virtuous samaṇas and brāhmaṇas in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the world beyond.”
(MN41)

In DN23 Prince Pāyāsi is sceptical that such people exist, and this scepticism is offered as one of the reasons for his disbelief in rebirth. He justifies his scepticism by remarking that he hasn’t noticed any of these good and virtuous samaṇas and brāhmaṇas hastening to kill themselves in order to gain speedy access to the heavenly afterlife that they supposedly have the power to foresee.

To this Ven. Kumārakassapa replies with the simile of the pregnant woman, concluding with:

“Moral and virtuous samaṇas and brāhmaṇas do not force maturity on that which is unripe; they, being wise, wait for that maturity. The virtuous confer benefit (attha) by their life. In proportion to the length of time such men abide here, is the abundant merit that they produce and accomplish for the welfare of many, for the happiness of many, out of compassion for the world, for the advantage, the welfare, the happiness of devas and men.”

So, if for these reasons even non-arahant samaṇas, who are not freed from suffering but only bound for heaven, can persuade themselves not to exit this life prematurely, how much more so arahant samaṇas (i.e., persons who know themselves to be incomparable fields of merit for the world).

Therefore, the fact that arahant samaṇas don’t generally take their own lives, but rather abide their time “like a servant awaiting his wages” doesn’t seem to amount to evidence one way or the other in the debate as to whether dukkha can, in any sense, be predicated of an arahant.

8 Likes
14

Venerable, do you know of any books/articles/threads where the question of arahant’s suffering (and suffering in general) is discussed?

15

Personally, I would highly recommend this one - DHAMMA WITHIN REACH by Ven. Ninnoslav Nynamoli:

Suffering is the symptom of Dukkha, which is the problem. Freedom from Dukkha then means freedom from the symptoms as well. In other words, freedom from the liability to suffer means freedom from suffering.
“Suffering” is a bit of an unfortunate translation. You could say that because symptoms of Dukkha are suffering, dukkha is also suffering, of course. But these things are not on the same level. Dukkha that needs to be understood is on the level of that “liability”. Something like an ever-present risk of suffering. That risk is not on the level of some particular thing that currently might be bothering you. That’s why the Buddha would say: “The wise man would reflect: I am subject to suffering. I’m subject to misfortune.” Meaning: “Nothing has happened to me, but it could. I am subjected to the possibility of these bad things happening.” I am at risk.

Q: I’m a prey to suffering.

Nm: Exactly. But if people confuse Dukkha to be the suffering that’s sometimes felt and sometimes isn’t; sometimes avoidable, sometimes not; they will not look for what the real problem of suffering is. They will not seek how to become risk-free.
For example, if you were being hunted by a lion, you’d assume that the problem is only if a lion actually attacks you. You don’t recognise that the problem is already, in fact, that the lion could possibly attack you at any given time. And that would be the main reason for the lion eventually attacking you: you remained within its hunting ground because you didn’t recognized the risk of being there even before you were attacked.
So, before the lion attacks you, you should recognise that this is the hunting ground of a lion, and you better do something about it before it attacks you. That’s what Dukkha is—that liability to an attack.
Literally, dukkha means “un-ease”, and sukha means “ease”. So, one can think: “There’s nothing wrong with me. I’m not being mauled by lions now. But I recognise that this is the stomping ground of wild cats that hunt people and I am at risk of becoming their prey.” Such recognition would make you very uneasy. You can’t just hide because you’re still within the same hunting ground. You will have to step out from your hiding place eventually and when you do, you will still be inside the lion’s domain and it might pounce on you.
That’s why it feels easier for people to ignore this anxious recognition of the fundamental uneasiness of their situation. It’s easier to cover up the fact that you are a prey to suffering of any kind. Usually people deal with suffering only when it arises and they cannot evade it. However, that dealing is not really addressing the core of the problem. It’s more on the level of managing the suffering until it disappears. Fighting off a lion. You might succeed few times, but you know for sure that eventually it will get you.

Q: You simply evaded the lions, you managed to survive their attack but still remain in their domain. It’s like when people say “My practice is working because I don’t suffer as much as I used to…”

Nm: Exactly. One has become very skilled in hiding away from the lions, even occasionally outrunning them. But the only reason that such skills are necessary is because one is still within the lion’s grounds. The Buddhist practice is supposed to take you out of the domain of Dukkha, out of the lion’s domain. You might be skilfully evading a lion, but you’re constantly burdened by the duty of needing to do so. One slip, one error, and you’re done. And the bottom line is that eventually the lion will get you, and you already know that deep down. That’s the message that the “divine messengers” are trying to convey to us: sickness, ageing and death. The three lions that no one can escape or win over. You can’t hide from it. In the end, it will hunt you down.
If your practice never makes you realise, “Oh, it’s about that liability to suffer, being prey to suffering” as the Buddha would say; you are not uprooting the suffering, you’re just managing it. And if the practice of Dhamma doesn’t uproot the suffering, then it’s not the Dhamma the Buddha was teaching.

The constantly overlooked problem with dukkha as the first noble truth is that dukkha is, well, the noble truth, a part of the right view, a knowledge that can only be truly explained by Buddha and understood by ariyas, and that dukkha has to be understood, not just felt.

The degree of understanding of what an arahant is and the situation of an arahant is secondary and the consequence of the personal understanding of dukkha: dukkha is the problem, and from the personal understanding of that problem follows the personal understanding of what it means to be free from dukkha, from the problem - what it means to be an arahant.

16

Well, arhats wouldn’t suffer in the sense that ignorant people suffer. They deal with discomfort that can be distracting and annoying, but they are detached from it. At least, in theory. I can vouch for the ability of a person to just ignore alot of discomfort because I do it myself, having a condition that causes random physical pains throughout my body that come and go. And I’m not an arhat.

There are stories of arhats deciding to enter parinirvana on purpose besides the Buddha doing it in the Parinirvana Sutra. They simply decide to end their life faculty and pass away because they don’t see any reason to remain, not because they are suffering. There’s for instance the story of Gavampati deciding to enter nirvana in spectacular fashion in the Commentary to the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra. I recently drafted MA 34 (MN 124) that depicted a similar case of the arhat Bakula choosing to enter nirvana while seated in meditation. The Pali commentary says he self-immolated himself. I guess the self-immolation motif is an old one.

1 Like
17

It’s better to become one with the Force :lightsaber:, than to cause immense physical stress and light oneself on fire. Do you mean self immolation? People return to the idea that the most painful death is somehow going to leave nothing left over in the physical body, but such ideas are attachment to Samsara ultimately. Whether there is a body left over or not, Peace is necessary at every step of the Way in the Path and Meditation to Cessation, Mahaparinibbana, the ultimate happiness and Peace forever.

1 Like
18

lol Yes, that was the word I was shooting for. And I agree. Yoda’s parinirvana feels more spiritual than the fireworks of classical Buddhist stories.

1 Like
19

Rune E.A. Johansson, The Psychology of Nirvana; esp. chapter 17.

Perhaps it would be best to start with some solid anthologies on the four Noble Truths.

Nyanatiloka, The Word of the Buddha.

Ñāṇamoli, The Life of the Buddha; chapter 12.

Bhikkhu Bodhi, In the Buddha’s Words; chapters 2, 3, 6, 7.

3 Likes
20
2 Likes