SuttaCentral
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
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.
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
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
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.
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:
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.
Apologies if my post wasn’t clear. But like I said, an arahant still has preferences, and there’s no reason they should pointlessly live in a painful useless shell of a body when they don’t even have a reason to be in samsāra. It’s not done out of craving, it’s done out of a decision. This is impossible for most people to relate to, so I understand it may not read as such. But someone can prefer not to be in pain and still not be craving, it’s just a sensible preference. Why live in pain if you’re going to die anyway and you’re already an arahant? That’s up for the arahant to decide, and clearly Ven. Channa saw it as appropriate for himself.
This decision is, again, unusual, as even Ven. Sāriputta thought it must mean he isn’t an arahant based on his reaction. You aren’t alone in thinking it appears to be aversive. But the Buddha clarified, and so Ven. Channa’s responses, although seemingly motivated by craving, were not—and that’s the plot twist. If an arahant did crave in reaction to pain, Ven. Sāriputta would not have assumed that Ven. Channa wasn’t an arahant and would have assumed it normal, so it doesn’t hold up, even with this sutta as a case-study, that an arahant suffers on account of pain. The entire point of it is that an arahant can seemingly be aversive to pain, but in reality, they just prefer (unmotivated by craving) to attain parinibbāna once and for all rather than hang around.
As for Godhika, he appears to not have been an arahant because he killed himself over distress for not being able to get jhāna. An arahant can attain jhāna at will—they have no hindrances to battle with—and would not be distressed over it.
Mettā
Hi @Vaddha , thanks for your response!
So in one text you accept that the Buddhas statement:
You should remember this: ‘The mendicant Channa slit his wrists blamelessly.’” ‘
Anupavajjo channo bhikkhu satthaṁ āharesī’ti evametaṁ, sāriputta, dhārehī”ti.
As implying arahantship yet
at SN4.23 the Buddha says of Godhika:
Having plucked out craving, root and all,
Samūlaṁ taṇhamabbuyha,Godhika is extinguished.”
godhiko parinibbuto”ti.
and;
‘Where is Godhika’s consciousness established?’
‘kattha godhikassa kulaputtassa viññāṇaṁ patiṭṭhitan’ti?But since his consciousness is not established, Godhika is extinguished.”
Appatiṭṭhitena ca, bhikkhave, viññāṇena godhiko kulaputto parinibbuto”ti.
you don’t accept as indicating arahantship?
textually,
nāvakaṅkhāmi in nāvakaṅkhāmi jīvitan is unique to channa in the early material.
calitaṃ and calite are likewise unique to channa in the 4 principle Nikayas.
natiyā is rare, occurring only with channa and at SN12.40 in the 4 Nikayas.
āgatigati is rare, occurring only with channa and at SN12.40 in the 4 Nikayas.
ubhayamantarena occurs only with channa in the 4N.
nevidha occurs only with channa and at SN35.95 in the 4N.
sammukhāyeva occurs only with channa and at MN22.
anupavajjatā occurs only with channa.
upavajjakulāni occurs only with channa.
suhajjakulāni occurs only with channa.
mittakulāni occurs only with channa.
saupavajjo occurs only with channa.
āharitaṃ occurs only with channa and godhika.
so of the two satthaṃ āharitaṃ (used the knife) texts in the entirety of early Buddhist literature, you accept one and reject the other, basically on doctrinal grounds, despite the one you reject being the only one that actually makes the claim of any attainment, the other just saying that the monk is “blameless”.
Isn’t it more likely that both these texts, littered with rare and unique terms (I’ve looked over MN144 for the above list, I haven’t yet looked at SN4.23 but I have little doubt āharitaṃ won’t be the only red flag), are in fact simply late, most likely added to recitation because of the scandal of a senior member of the early monastic community committing suicide due to chronic pain or some such and the authorities needing to squash any rumors about the monks not being the real deal because of it?
Basically the Sutta Pitaka data on suicide comes from MN144 SN35.87 SN22.87 SN4.23 and if you accept the Udana as early (I don’t) then throw in Ud8.9. the above list of terms shows MN144 and SN35.87 to be so littered with rare and unique words that outside of the stock phrases in the aggregates interrogation there’s barely a sentence that isn’t quite likely late. So that leaves our friend godhika, the monk who was an arahant that committed suicide out of misery that they couldn’t meditate properly, and finally, again if you like that sort of thing, a monk who floats in the air and bursts into flame leaving no ash.
Moving from Sutta to Vinaya we have Bu Pj 3 which has:
ānāpānassatisamādhi occurring only at Bu Pj 3, SN54 (and the Visuddhimagga)
asubhabhāvanāya occurring only at Bu Pj 3, and SN54.9
harāyanti unique to Bu Pj 3 (but occurs in late works Nidessa and Visuddhimagga)
jīvitā voropesin unique to Bu Pj 3
maraṇavaṇṇaṃ unique to Bu Pj 3
asubhasamāpattiyā unique to Bu Pj 3
asubhabhāvanānuyogamanuyuttā unique to Bu Pj 3
aññamaññampi unique to Bu Pj 3
samaṇakuttakaṃ unique to Bu Pj 3
dhovantassa unique to Bu Pj 3
atiṇṇe unique to Bu Pj 3
tāremī unique to Bu Pj 3
In conclusion, sans a commitment to the whole of the EBT’s being authentic statements of the Buddha, or a commitment to picking and choosing which texts are legitimate based on understanding the minds of arahants, which according to the very same texts aught to be more or less impossible without actually being an arahant, we are left only with the textual evidence before us, and that, to my mind, is clearly suggestive that the suicide question is late relative to much of the material, being rare, and using language and terms that are even rarer.
(just as as an aside, I am not claiming that unique terms are in and of themselves evidence of the lateness of a text, it could in fact be the reverse, however I think that where a text has many stock passages that are repeated throughout the canon, and that text then also has many unique or rare words, then the text is more likely to be late than early, especially if the words occur in the late books of KN, the AB and the VM.)
Metta.
Greetings, @josephzizys ! Thanks for the detailed reply; it’s definitely good to look at some of the philology!
I was not very clear on this, my apologies. What I meant to distinguish was between an arahant committing suicide (in the case of Ven. Channa) vs. a non-arahant realizing arahantship at the time of / right before death (in the case of Ven. Godhika).
Doctrinally, an arahant would not commit suicide over failure to attain jhāna because no such failure can exist. So on doctrinal grounds far sturdier than an arahant being upset over not getting jhāna and committing suicide, I do reject that Ven. Godhika used the knife blamelessly—but I don’t reject that according to the text, he died an arahant.
Ven. Vakkali is another such case of an unestablished consciousness in the case of a bhikkhu who comitted suicide. I think Ven. Vakkali’s case is not clear, and it is quite possible that—as far as the authenticity of the text goes—he died an arahant without cutting his wrists as an arahant, or perhaps his case was more akin to that of Ven. Channa.
That someone attains arahantship before committing suicide is not a rarity. It happens a handful of times in the Thera-Therīgāthās (though they did not go through with the attempt, lest they not survive to tell the tale). Attaining arahantship (or even other stages of enlightenment before death) is attested as a possibility as well. (Forgive my lack of sutta references at the moment; I don’t have WiFi right now and am on mobile. I may be able to come back and add them in later).
This is also the position of the Theravada commentaries regarding arahantship and suicide (minus the case of the Udāna I imagine), so it is acknowledged as possible commentarially as well.
I am not as familiar with Pāli philological stratification. However, to push back a bit, it does not surprise me that the only suttas that discuss suicide contain unique language; the contents itself is unique. I would also want to take a look at the words usage and frequency in later literature to see if they crop up or not and in what contexts. If this is a rare subject matter, I’d expect it to contain rare language for the rather uniform Pāli canon in terms of subject matter.
As for them being later, as I said, this would have to be pre-sectarian. The texts have parallels in the āgamas, and some of their implications are rejected by the Theravadin commentaries responsible for their transmission. Clearly the people of the commentarial or Vsm time wouldn’t write such a sutta (which must be much earlier anyway due to its parallels), so the usage of some terms in later works does not seem particularly convincing as of now. However, there definitely could be something going on!
Also, Ven. Channa was not a respected teacher in the story. He is portrayed as dubious to Ven. Sāriputta—a highly esteemed disciple, as we know—and was known for socializing for dubious families in the sutta, along with potential connections in the Vinaya if they refer to the same person. It would also look bad for the Sthaviravadins to have a text on an arahant committing suicide considering the doctrinal difference in views between them and the Mahasanghikas, but this is perhaps a lot less relevant.
As for being an esteemed teacher, Ven. Godhika is described as committing suicide because he struggled to attain jhāna. I’m not sure what prominent teacher would be one who is distraught by his instable jhāna capabilities, or for committing suicide over it, which even Ven. Sāriputta in the suttas on Channa is depicted as finding odd.
There’s also the possibility that the texts, like many suttas, have some exaggerated features that are slightly later despite the contents being nearly identical. The mention to the gray foggy cloud being Māra could very well be a colorful addition on account of the reciters/redactors onto the Buddha’s claim of them dying an arahant. That is, there is some slight intratextuality going on still true to the contents of the story. Just a possibility.
The Udāna suicide is also very different. I agree it is almost certainly late, though it was popular. However, Dabba is a) given permission by the Buddha to intentionally kill himself; it is not over something he was seemingly distraught over, b) Dabba was a respected monastic in the Vinaya and such, c) there are miraculous events and uncommon psychic powers. None of this is true of the earlier suttas on Channa/Godhika/Vakkali—so the idea of someone committing suicide is of a very different nature from a known later text that is still relatively early. If the stories of the latter 3 were fabricated, it is in a very different way and a much more controversial one.
Like with many suttas, we can’t be sure as of now. I agree that the language is something to look into, but remain unconvinced when stacked against the rarity of the contents, the parallels, the lack of justification and difference of interests to the recitation lineages/commentaries, etc. Thoughts?
With mettā!
thanks for your reply again @Vaddha , this is fun! so much to address…
Just to be clear, neither am I! I am trying to teach myself Pali (and a bit of classical Chinese) and trying to figure out “Philology” as well, but I am not an academic and I am not even a full time student.
That said, using Digital Pali Reader and Suttacentral as my basic tools, I have been able, over the last year, to at least convince myself that word frequencies matter in the corpus, at least in as much as they indicate the “solidity” of the ground people are standing on. Basically, my uneducated opinion is that if it is repeated more that a dozen times, and occurs in all 4 principle Nikayas, then it is quite likely to be early. If it is rare, or confined to just one NIkaya, and especially if the language becomes more common in the NIdessa, Vibhanga, Visudhimagga etc then it is at least possibly late, and if not late then at least not solid ground for doctrinal claims.
When I use “late” btw, I always mean “late in the pre-sectarian period”. This is the only period of Buddhism I am interested in (not because the rest isn’t interesting but because between Pali, Chinese, Philology, Philosophy etc I have enough to be going on with for several lifetimes without worrying about the Abbhidhamma or the commentaries, let alone the Mahayana sutras, except incidentally as they bear on my concerns) and so I tend to use the term a bit differently to some others I guess.
Anyway, in terms of further thoughts, the main one I have is that just as MN144 and SN35.87 are variations of the same root text, so too SN22.87 and SN4.23 clearly derive from the same source:
At one time the Buddha was staying near Rājagaha, in the Bamboo Grove, the squirrels’ feeding ground.
Ekaṁ samayaṁ bhagavā rājagahe viharati veḷuvane kalandakanivāpe.
SN22.87
At one time the Buddha was staying near Rājagaha, in the Bamboo Grove, the squirrels’ feeding ground.
ekaṁ samayaṁ bhagavā rājagahe viharati veḷuvane kalandakanivāpe.
SN4.23
Then the Buddha said to the mendicants,
Atha kho bhagavā bhikkhū āmantesi:“Come, mendicants, let’s go to the Black Rock on the slopes of Isigili,
*“āyāma, bhikkhave, yena isigilipassaṁ kāḷasilā tenupasaṅkamissāma;where Vakkali, the gentleman, slit his wrists.”
yattha vakkalinā kulaputtena satthamāharitan”ti.“Yes, sir,” they replied.
“Evaṁ, bhante”ti kho te bhikkhū bhagavato paccassosuṁ.Then the Buddha together with several mendicants went to the Black Rock on the slopes of Isigili.
Atha kho bhagavā sambahulehi bhikkhūhi saddhiṁ yena isigilipassaṁ kāḷasilā tenupasaṅkami.The Buddha saw Vakkali off in the distance lying on his cot, having cast off the aggregates.
Addasā kho bhagavā āyasmantaṁ vakkaliṁ dūratova mañcake vivattakkhandhaṁ semānaṁ.
SN22.87
Then the Buddha said to the mendicants,
Atha kho bhagavā bhikkhū āmantesi:“Come, mendicants, let’s go to the Black Rock on the slopes of Isigili where Godhika, who came from a good family, slit his wrists.”
“āyāma, bhikkhave, yena isigilipassaṁ kāḷasilā tenupasaṅkamissāma yattha godhikena kulaputtena satthaṁ āharitan”ti.“Yes, sir,” they replied.
“Evaṁ, bhante”ti kho te bhikkhū bhagavato paccassosuṁ.Then the Buddha together with several mendicants went to the Black Rock on the slopes of Isigili.
Atha kho bhagavā sambahulehi bhikkhūhi saddhiṁ yena isigilipassaṁ kāḷasilā tenupasaṅkami.The Buddha saw Godhika off in the distance lying on his cot, having cast off the aggregates.
Addasā kho bhagavā āyasmantaṁ godhikaṁ dūratova mañcake vivattakkhandhaṁ semānaṁ.
SN4.23
Now at that time a cloud of black smoke was moving east, west, north, south, above, below, and in-between.
Tena kho pana samayena dhūmāyitattaṁ timirāyitattaṁ gacchateva purimaṁ disaṁ, gacchati pacchimaṁ disaṁ, gacchati uttaraṁ disaṁ, gacchati dakkhiṇaṁ disaṁ, gacchati uddhaṁ disaṁ, gacchati adho disaṁ, gacchati anudisaṁ.The Buddha said to the mendicants,
Atha kho bhagavā bhikkhū āmantesi:“Mendicants, do you see that cloud of black smoke moving east, west, north, south, above, below, and in-between?”
“passatha no tumhe, bhikkhave, etaṁ dhūmāyitattaṁ timirāyitattaṁ gacchateva purimaṁ disaṁ …pe… gacchati anudisan”ti.“Yes, sir.” “Evaṁ, bhante”.
“That’s Māra the Wicked searching for Vakkali’s consciousness, wondering:
“Eso kho, bhikkhave, māro pāpimā vakkalissa kulaputtassa viññāṇaṁ samanvesati:‘Where is Vakkali’s consciousness established?’
‘kattha vakkalissa kulaputtassa viññāṇaṁ patiṭṭhitan’ti?But since his consciousness is not established, Vakkali is extinguished.”
Appatiṭṭhitena ca, bhikkhave, viññāṇena vakkali kulaputto parinibbuto”ti.
SN22.87
Now at that time a cloud of black smoke was moving east, west, north, south, above, below, and in-between.
Tena kho pana samayena dhūmāyitattaṁ timirāyitattaṁ gacchateva purimaṁ disaṁ, gacchati pacchimaṁ disaṁ, gacchati uttaraṁ disaṁ, gacchati dakkhiṇaṁ disaṁ, gacchati uddhaṁ, gacchati adho, gacchati anudisaṁ.Then the Buddha said to the mendicants,
Atha kho bhagavā bhikkhū āmantesi:“Mendicants, do you see that cloud of black smoke moving east, west, north, south, above, below, and in-between?”
“passatha no tumhe, bhikkhave, etaṁ dhūmāyitattaṁ timirāyitattaṁ gacchateva purimaṁ disaṁ, gacchati pacchimaṁ disaṁ, gacchati uttaraṁ disaṁ, gacchati dakkhiṇaṁ disaṁ, gacchati uddhaṁ, gacchati adho, gacchati anudisan”ti?“Yes, sir.”
“Evaṁ, bhante”.“That’s Māra the Wicked searching for Godhika’s consciousness, wondering:
“Eso kho, bhikkhave, māro pāpimā godhikassa kulaputtassa viññāṇaṁ samanvesati:‘Where is Godhika’s consciousness established?’
‘kattha godhikassa kulaputtassa viññāṇaṁ patiṭṭhitan’ti?But since his consciousness is not established, Godhika is extinguished.”
Appatiṭṭhitena ca, bhikkhave, viññāṇena godhiko kulaputto parinibbuto”ti.
SN4.23
So both stories share the exact same frame…
appatiṭṭhitena which means “unestablished” or “without a footing” occurs only in these 2 suttas and the milindapanha
vivattakkhandhaṃ which no-one knows the meaning of (see below), also occurs only in these twin suttas.
Godhika’s sāmayikaṃ cetovimuttiṃ “temporary freedom of heart” occurs nowhere else in the canon, Vakkali is maybe our only source for dhammaṁ passati so maṁ passati “who sees the teaching sees me” ?
So I guess I am wary of drawing any conclusions form what look to me like just 3 texts in the early material, the channa pair, the godhika vakkali pair and the Vinaya story.
one other thought; the godhika sutta is just wierd all over, Mara comes to the Buddha to warn him to prevent the suicide, while the Buddha says suicide is fine, then Mara recites his own exit poem, dropping a harp that in DN at least belongs to the spirit pañcasikho.
Metta
Sounds great! I’m working on learning Pāli as well, though have been approaching it much too loosely recently. Classical Chinese is a fun one.
Yes, this is an interesting / relevant point. This is not at all unusual in the suttas, but the narrative portion being so similar, it is a little strange: which was first? why the name change?
This is not exactly true. This concept and the related words appear consistently in many suttas. SN 22.53-55, SN 12.38-40, SN 12.64, and DN 28 come to mind. That particular declension of the word may be unique to these suttas, but the word itself, as well as the concept, is not.
This does not surprise me considering the uniqueness of the material. How many mentions to dead monks spread out on a cot for people to see are there in the canon, especially arahants? This could easily be a somewhat dignifying term, a unique anatomical reference, or perhaps a known euphemism / phrase for dead people in Pāli lost to time. All of these would make perfect sense not to be found elsewhere and not be late.
The idea of a temporary cetovimutti is spread throughout the canon. This term itself again may be rarer, but there is a very similar reference with the same root at AN 5.149. This sutta with Godhika specifically being about him losing the attainment, a concept not mentioned similarly elsewhere except in AN 5.149 which does use similar terminology, also makes sense of why the term is rare. It’s definitely possible that this is indicative of lateness, but again, I don’t see why it would have to be.
This line is rather famous and is quoted in some Mahayana Sutras as well, indicating it being quite well known and cherished. This doesn’t say much about the lateness, but it does speak to it being pre-sectarian as expected. The later traditions also deify the Buddha and eventually his relics / images; the idea of not caring about seeing him is contradictory the developing ideas of his special physical marks and significance of the relics and whatnot. This is a sign of an earlier narrative, but not necessarily during his lifetime with any certainty. Just something to consider.
I’ve mostly passed this over because it’s a huge topic that has been studied comparatively—and I don’t remember much about the conclusions. I do know that this whole event is rather embarrassing for the Buddhist community and for their depiction of the Buddha as a whole; that they would invent a story about the Buddha giving advice that lead to a bunch of people killing themselves is highly unlikely IMO. We’d have to look into some of the comparative research though.
I agree; it is rather odd. Considering the similarity to the story of Vakkali, it’s very possible that the story of Godhika is a copy that has been edited / added to with that original root text as basis. Like I said about the intratextuality, I think it’s important to consider that these texts may have a mixture of older contents and concepts mixed in with later edits and ‘spice’ layered on top. The temporary liberation thing could be added on, for instance.
I’d like to think on the text and try and understand what it’s saying, considering the strangeness. It feels like there’s missing context, an editing error, or something going on. It being a copy akin to the Vakkali sutta + some verses from another source and added narrative could be it, who knows.
Mettā
Could you point to any specific sutta sources for this? Also, this thread seems to be getting a bit off-topic here. Arahant suicide and the difference between acting out of preferences vs. acting out of craving is straying pretty wide of anattā ontology, but it’s certainly a topic worthy of a thread fork.
Oh thank you @Vaddha ! this is where my lack of sophistication in Pali often comes to bite me I still think that a given declension of a word being rare is indicative of it being potentially late, it’s not a philological argument per se rather a sort of naive statistical one, as in if you have a bunch of suttas using a particular technical term always in a particular declension, and then one sutta all by itself puts it in a different way, then it may be because the outrider is a late or corrupt version of the term.
Also, although it is out of neccecity and ignorance that I have confined myself to literal stings of letters as my match criteria, I also think it is a reasonable approach to take in many cases, avoiding as it does any questions of similitude of concept, a very slippery slope in my opinion.
Yes, i’m sure your right, I guess the point I am making is more along the lines that while suttas often repeat frame stories here we have a repetition that occurs only once, that is that it’s not that the two suttas resemble each other because a whole lot of suttas resemble them, it is just these two in particular that share the same frame with each other and no one else.
Yes, I put the question mark in because, per my poor Pali, I wasn’t sure if it didn’t have other EBT occurrences with differing declensions etc? It is very similar to
yo paṭiccasamuppādaṃ passati so dhammaṃ passati; yo dhammaṃ passati so paṭiccasamuppādaṃ passatīti
at MN28
and yo dhammaṃ passati, so bhagavantaṃ passati in Milindapahna.
I am not as sure about this, it seems to me that it could well be the case that the suicide craze occurred after the Buddha’s time, and the textual response was a way of deterring it and modifying the meditation practices that where seen as the cause of it.
The invention would then be of the Buddha giving advise that stopped people from killing themselves.
This to my mind just seems more likely than a religious leader just failing to notice a wholesale slaughter in their own community, but I suppose this just goes to show how intuitions differ.
So stricken with sorrow
Tassa sokaparetassa,that his harp dropped from his armpit,
Vīṇā kacchā abhassatha;that spirit, downcast,
Tato so dummano yakkho,vanished right there.
Tatthevantaradhāyathāti.
at least is from Snp 3.2
Metta
Well the jhānas are states of samādhi in which the hindrances are absent and one is secluded from sensuality. An arahant has no hindrances nor any sensuality in them, and they have no attachment to any of the sensual world (or any world). So there’s no reason why they wouldn’t be able to enter jhāna at will via turning their mind to it. Likewise, the arahant is said to have perfected sīla, samādhi, and paññā, or elsewhere, to have perfected all five spiritual faculties (including samādhi); one cannot have perfect samādhi if they struggle to attain jhāna (a struggle which would require hindrances to obstruct one, these being the only obstacle to jhāna).
Jhāna is also in the gradual training, and so to have an arahant who struggles to attain something in the training course would mean they have not really fulfilled or mastered that training. This is perhaps a slightly weaker logical argument but still relevant.
As for specific references to attaining jhāna at will— the Buddha Ven. Mahākassap can (SN 16.9), Ven. Sāriputta says he can do so SN 46.4, Citta the Householder (an anāgāmi; said to have perfected samādhi but not paññā) says he can in SN 41.9, the Bhikkhunī Uttamā can (Thig 3.3), Anuruddha and his companions can (MN 31). In AN 10.71, the Buddha says one will be able to attain them at will if they fulfil their precepts and see danger in the slightest fault. In AN 8.58, attaining them at will is a quality of the arahants / those worthy of alms. In MN 119, the Buddha says one who has fully cultivated kāyagatāsati will be able to achieve the jhānas at will. Those are some examples that come up w/ a quick search.
Good point, lol. We should fork it off. Thanks!
Mettā
I don’t understand how there’s an issue with this. Is it not commonly understood that the Buddha was purely interested in strategies and pragmatism and NOT interested in metaphysical “understanding”? Knowledge itself seems to not be worth much to the Buddha except when it can be applied to practical usage in the quest to end suffering.
I feel like when he compared a handful of leaves representing the knowledge he spoke of as opposed to the leaves in a forest representing the knowledge he had but never spoke of completely illustrates this.
When I think of Buddhism I admire it for its pure purpose. It’s not about teaching you interesting things or acquiring knowledge for the sake of it. It is 100% a manual to achieve a specific aim. Am I misunderstanding something about Bhante Sujato’s purpose with essays like these?
Personally I think saying that everything you encounter is not self is a much more useful teaching than trying to say there is no self. “No self” is the sort of claim that you have to take on faith, whereas “not self” seems like the kind of thing you can fairly easily prove to anybody willing to investigate in good faith.
I don’t think arguing against “no self” is a straw man at all considering a quick google search will show that that is a VERY common idea attributed to Buddhism. I’m not going to say either of these monks are the correct one regarding the actual concept of anatta, but it seems clear to me that there IS a large enough amount of people that say that Buddhism believes there is no self that an argument against that would be necessary if that conclusion isn’t quite subtle enough…