The above sounds unsubstantiated.
Btw, awesome post with the Vinaya references. I never knew of them. 
Tradition holds that these were different people who simply shared the name “Channa”:
1 Like
Ooh thanks for the link! Seems an odd thing for the tradition to hold tho doesn’t it? given the basic picture in Vin is of a Channa with a “special friend” and the Sutta raises the “special friend”?
Also as usual Buddhaghosa is fantastically creative in giving us the idea that it was after he slit his throat but before he actually died that he awakened, hence capable of both having “special friends” and the Buddha endorsing his arahantship.
1 Like
The above sounds unsubstantiated.
When someone lays down this body and takes up another body, I call them ‘blameworthy’.
Yo kho, sāriputta, tañca kāyaṁ nikkhipati, aññañca kāyaṁ upādiyati, tamahaṁ saupavajjoti vadāmi.
But the mendicant Channa did no such thing.
Taṁ channassa bhikkhuno natthi.
You should remember this: ‘The mendicant Channa slit his wrists blamelessly.’”
‘Anupavajjaṁ channena bhikkhunā satthaṁ āharitan’ti—
evametaṁ, sāriputta, dhārehī”ti.
Are you saying the above does not imply arahanthood?
1 Like
To me, it says nothing more than Channa passed away without attachment (upādiyati).
upādiyati
to take hold of, to grasp, cling to, show attachment (to the world), cp. upādāna
Surely, a stream-enterer can pass away without attachment; even though the underlying tendencies of the stream-enterer are not yet uprooted. SN 22.22 has a similar teaching:
“The five aggregates are indeed burdens,
“Bhārā have pañcakkhandhā,
and the person is the bearer of the burden.
bhārahāro ca puggalo;
Picking up the burden is suffering in the world,
Bhārādānaṁ dukhaṁ loke,
and putting the burden down is happiness.
bhāranikkhepanaṁ sukhaṁ.When the heavy burden is put down
Nikkhipitvā garuṁ bhāraṁ,
without picking up another,
aññaṁ bhāraṁ anādiya;SN 22.22
anādiyanta
negative adjective
- takes, accepts, receives; takes up, undertakes; appropriates; seizes, grasps
Note: the word “kaya” does not literally mean “physical body” or “rupa”. I recall there was a topic about this, here: 'Kāya' and 'body' in context. It seems a ‘kaya’ can be any ‘group’ of aggregates, including mere mental ideas. Thus, when SN 35.87 says Channa did not attach to another ‘kaya’, it could simply mean Channa pass away without wishing for rebirth in heaven or some other type of mental attachment. Personally, I don’t read the sutta saying the Buddha said Channa was not ‘reincarnated’ into a new physical body again. But I could be wrong. 
1 Like
Not particularly, considering that the “naughty” Channa was alive at the Parinibbana and the “suicidal” Channa died before the Buddha.
1 Like
Hmm. And yet they both had a reputation for innapropriately close relationships with housholders. Odd.
As you and others have shown, this is not a normal thing. So it’s important to remember from the get-go that this is not common, and it is a rarity.
Nevertheless, we shouldn’t ignore it. It’s very difficult to understand how someone could be acting without craving. All non-arahants, whenever they act, are almost always acting out of craving, even in very subtle ways. If we shift our position to be more comfortable, it’s probably due to some aversion to the discomfort. An arahant, however, never acts out of craving. An arahant can shift their position to a more comfortable one, but not out of aversion to discomfort nor craving for comfort.
Why, then, would the arahant move? Does that mean they have craving? Why don’t they just stand still for their entire life and never move if they aren’t averse to pain?
There’s no real reason an arahant does anything at all. They make no kamma; there is no conceit or sense of ‘i’ (asmīmāna). Whatever they do, it’s essentially completely arbitrary and just done out of what is wise, compassionate, convenient, sensible, random, etc. They are no longer making any decisions in response to craving, but rather, they are simply acting despite what conditions may be present.
If an arahant cannot move out of bed and the body is in agonizing pain leading them straight to death, then why would they hang around? Why would they not hang around? There’s no reason to do either when there is no craving besides what is convenient, sensible, or just the (non-craved) preference. But they may decide that their time is up and that it’s best they just end it rather than hanging around with a useless, painful body for no reason. Not because they want to escape the pain and are averse, but because they decide so—nothing more. Just like the shifting position for a more comfortable one, it’s hard to understand how one would do this without aversion or craving. But they can do it. An arahant can shift to a more comfortable position because why should they not do so? Same with Channa, but in a more extreme case. He can end his life if he so decides because he is an arahant and it is *impossible that it will be done out of aversion.
’
Hope that helps
Mettā
2 Likes
Gotta say between your explination and the explination that Channa’s arahantship is an interpolation I am in no doubt which seems more plausable to me.
I would also note that your explination contradicts Buddhaghosa’s given above where Channa is said to have attained arahantship after slitting the throat but before actually dying.
This seems to betray an anxiety on the part of Buddhaghosa regarding the likelyhood of an arahant commiting suicide.
If you read the sutta, it makes no sense that he would become an arahant afterwards. The entire conversation between Channa and Sāriputta is him telling Sāriputta that he is an arahant and Sāriputta essentially doubting it. He then goes to the Buddha to ask about his death and the plot twist is that Channa was an arahant (the whole time).
Bhikkhu Anālayo has done comparative work on this and has also come to the conclusion that him becoming an arahant at death is unlikely.
Whether or not someone claims it is an interpolation is another matter. Either way, as far as the suttas go, an arahant can seemingly commit suicide, albeit a rare occurrence and. Even if Channa wasn’t an arahant, the Buddha says that someone who is an arahant uses the knife blamelessly, so Channa specifically is not even relevant to this question.
Considering the Theravāda commentarial tradition tries to cover this up and justify it, I would be highly suspicious of people who claim that the tradition passing this text down added it in. It also has parallels and occurs in 2 nikāyas in the Pāli, meaning it was distributed intentionally at some point there likely after the first split (considering the āgamas and nikāyas’ organization is distinct), or it was considered an important event across the various schools. Either way, it would have to be before the commentarial / orthodox Theravada position that shoves it under the rug.
Mettā
1 Like
Those are good points. Any links to Analayo’s work on this? Or other examples of using the knife “blamelessly” in the EBT’s?
I think its a very interesting area.
1 Like
Unfortunately it looks like Anālayo’s article on the Channa parallels is down and no longer available to the public? Maybe you can find it. I had read it somewhere on the Open Buddhist Library before, so you may be able to find it there. It didn’t pop up for me though.
I did find his look at the case of Vakkali, though. Another monk who committed suicide and was said to have died an arahant. Here is the paper with the Samyukta and Ekottarika parallels.
It’s interesting that the Ekottarika parallel, which is seemingly a later compilation of sorts that draws from a couple of sources, also mentions that if an arahant ‘uses the knife’ that it is blameless. Still, one has to analyze the more reliable parallel versions to get to the earliest material/opinion on the matter.
Skimming through it, he mentions the case of Dabba Mallaputta in the Udāna as well. This story occurs twice in the Udāna back to back. It is of an arahant who self-cremates himself, i.e. a form of suicide, for parinibbāna. I believe Bhikkhu Anālayo finds it to likely be an exaggeration and one of the first cases of self-immolation or burning to come up, which became (and still is) very influential in certain Mahāyāna traditions where they burn fingers and things based on sūtras where there is self-immolation. Either way, this is a very clear case of an arahant deliberately committing suicide with the permission of the Buddha in the Pāḷi canon. Despite what the commentaries say, the suttas themselves approve of this act. Likewise, the āgamas (at least the Ekottarika) explicitly allow it as well (even though this account has some contradictions in it that Bhante Anālayo points out, and as such is not as reliable).
The stories in the Udāna though, like I mentioned, are much less reliable. Channa and Vakkali are the two well documented cases in the suttas to analyze, and they don’t make things as explicit. If you have any luck finding the Channa comparative article lmk 
Mettā
1 Like
I found these links on Analayo’s work:
https://journal.equinoxpub.com/BSR/article/view/8919/10377
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vN6GJQ9q-6dN9_T5IHzIoE3aaxI-aAGX/view
1 Like
Amazing! Fantastic! thank you so much @Vaddha !! thank you so much @bigrooster these are fascinating articles
The venerable Channa said: ‘My body is ill now, extremely painful so that it
is difficult to bear, the disease that has manifested is getting worse, not bet-
ter. I just wish to take a knife and kill myself, [since] I do not enjoy living in
pain’.
it is hard to reconcile the above with the below:
.
One explanation might be that in fact arahnatship is not some superhuman state in the EBT’s, just a state of wise understanding like Socrates is portrayed as having when he drinks his hemlock, and hence the Buddha can lie down with a sore back, Channa can commit suicide, the Buddha can look out over the assembly and say “this place seems empty without Sariputta and Moggalana”.
So instead of a seemingly intractable philosophical problem of explaining how people with no motivations whatsoever could possibly choose to act in one way or another other than completely at random, instead these people had feelings and pains and all those things, but understood them wisely, and where not overthrown by them.
such a deflationary account would resolve many issues of textual hermeneutics, if be a little disappointing to certain practitioners.
I also note that even Analayo can’t resist his extra-textual glosses when it comes to subtly defending the Therevadan interpretation of anatta in the EBT’s:
Sāriputta said: ‘I will now ask you, you may answer me in accordance with
what you think.13 Channa, the eye, eye-consciousness and the form cognized
through the eye — could these be a self, [or] be distinct from a self [in the
sense of being owned by it],14 or exist [within a self], or else [could a self]
exist [within them]?’.15 Channa replied: ‘No’.
Oh, and by examining the rarity of such terms as patiṭṭhitan and vivattakkhandhaṃ, which do not appear to occur outside of SN, I think I have found another suicide; at SN4.23 , Godhika. Fascinatingly, like Vakkali he appears to have chosen Black Rock on the slopes of Isigili as the spot to do it.
so the 5 cases, so far: Channa, Sn22.90 and MN144 Vakkali, SN22.87 Godhika, SN4.23 Dabba Ud8.9 and Migalaṇḍika Bu Pj 3
Metta.
4 Likes
I wonder if the conversation between Channa and Sariputta can be taken differently.
Sariputta tries to get Channa to keep living. Perhaps Channa is simply making an argument that there is no reason for him to live because he has awakened and there is no joy in pain.
If the translation changes from:
I just wish to take a knife and kill myself, [since] I do not enjoy living in pain’.
to
I just wish to take a knife and kill myself. I take no joy in living in pain’.
This second translation doesn’t interpolate the word since, and simply allows Channa to make two matter of fact statements.
I remember that in other suttas, Arahants delighted in the Buddha’s teaching. I assumed that they did so because they could more easily teach others.
It is possible that Channa’s pain was severe enough that it incapacitated him and prevented him from being useful to anyone. In such a case, he may have seen no purpose in continuing to live and decided that it was time to cast aside his body like one might cast aside a broken tool.
The Buddha’s comment about Sariputta and Mogalana could also potentially be seen the same way. They were two of the Buddha’s most gifted students and their death is a loss to the propagation of the teaching. So the Buddha’s comment of empty could be interpreted to mean that the hole they have left in the Sangha could not be filled by anyone else.
Similarly, with the Buddha resting due to back pain, could we not interpret it as a case of expediency? He had a disciple who was up to the task of teaching so he could prioritise letting his body recover. It would be different if the Buddha refused to to teach at all due to back pain and there was also no one else who could do the job. But I know of no suttas that describe such a scenario.
Sure @dhamma012 , you can do those things if you like, its one way of going, I quite like the other way too though,it makes the people in these stories more human and relatable, and it is also a healthy check on romanticism as a way of self comfort, which might be good for people, especially helping them let go of attachment to the dhamma.
Metta.
There is a related issue that has always bothered me a bit, but I am not insisting on resolution, so its fine. The issue is if someone is an arahant and intent on committing suicide, they have to know that all the “big ticket” kamma items have already borne their fruit. How do they know that as a fact? I can kind of see arahants with huge psychic powers knowing it in advance but not all arhants have that. How do they know that there are no lingering heavy kamma yet to ripen? Not all arahants see eons worth of past lives.
The other possibility is that somehow all the remaining kamma-fruition is forfeited at the time of parinibbana.
Only an arahant that had either of these two assurances (at minimum) would think of committing suicide with impunity. Of course this is precisely the line of inquiry that was deemed to lead to vexation and madness so it is perfectly ok if there is no answer.
This is true. It has certain implications for how we define suffering though, as the human-ness would likely mean that the arahant would suffer in some way while they are alive. Perhaps the texts support this perspective, but from what I’ve read, suffering is gone at the moment of awakening.
I’m not sure this part is particularly healthy though. We have attachments all the way until awakening. Given this, it seems more logical to have a stronger attachment to the dhamma than anything else and then let it go at the end. In a similar way to how the raft is held onto in the raft to the other shore simile.
My own interest in taking up the view mentioned in my comment above stems from a wish to find an interpretation that is consistent with the description that the end of clinging is the end of suffering.
Hi @trusolo
The first three of the four noble truths, in their simplest form, are:
- this is suffering
- this is the cause of suffering
- this is the end of suffering
The this, in each case is a direct knowledge or understanding of the relevant item.
I have heard that knowledge of the four noble truths arises simultaneously, however for the purposes of the present discussion I’ll take them in sequential order.
First, the experience of suffering is known and then clinging is understood to give rise to this experience.
Therefore clinging can be thought of as what we do that then ultimately results in suffering. Other suttas show that clinging also results in rebirth, due to fabrication on account of the clinging.
The third noble truth speaks of the experience that remains once the tendency to cling is abandoned, and this experience is known as the end of suffering.
Given the above, the arahant doesn’t need to know all the permutations of kamma they may have created in the past. They just need to know whether they have completely uprooted clinging.
However, there is one property of the knowledge of the four noble truths that is special. The arahant must know that the knowledge they have discovered is constant. I.e. there won’t be some moment in the future where suffering arises due to something other than clinging. I’m not exactly sure how they would know this, but I suspect that this knowledge is tied up with the four noble truths such that it is also known simultaneously.
So long as this holds, they will not cling in the present and will therefore not fabricate a body for the future. With fabrication halted, there is complete knowledge that there is no future rebirth.