Conclusion
Where does all this leave us with respect to the seventy-year consensus that suicide is permitted for Arhats? I think it gives us a number of reasons to question it. First, there is no reason to think that the exoneration of Channa establishes a normative position on suicide. This is because to exonerate from blame is not the same as to condone.
Second, there are textual reasons for thinking that the Buddha’s apparent exoneration may not be an exoneration after all. The textual issues are complex and it would not be safe to draw any firm conclusions. It might be observed in passing that the textual evidence that suicide may be permissible in Christianity is much greater than in Buddhism. There are many examples of suicide in the Old Testament: this has not, however, prevented the Christian tradition from teaching consistently[54] that suicide is gravely wrong. By comparison, Theravaada sources are a model of consistency in their refusal to countenance the intentional destruction of life.
Third, the commentarial tradition finds the idea that an Arhat would take his own life in the way Channa did completely unacceptable. Fourth, there is a logical point which, although somewhat obvious, seems to have been overlooked in previous discussions. If we assume, along with the commentary and secondary literature, that Channa was not an Arhat prior to his suicide attempt, then to extrapolate a rule from this case such that suicide is permissible for Arhats is fallacious. The reason for this is that Channa’s suicide was– in all significant respects– the suicide of an unenlightened person. The motivation, deliberation and intention which preceded his suicide– everything down to the act of picking up the razor– all this was done by an unenlightened person. Channa’s suicide thus cannot be taken as setting a precedent for Arhats for the simple reason that he was not one himself until after he had performed the suicidal act.
Fifth and finally, suicide is repeatedly condemned in canonical and non-canonical sources and goes directly “against the stream” of Buddhist moral teachings. A number of reasons why suicide is wrong are found in the sources[55] but no single underlying objection to suicide is articulated. This is not an easy thing to do, and Schopenhauer was not altogether wrong in his statement that the moral arguments against suicide “lie very deep and are not touched by ordinary ethics.”[56] Earlier I suggested that the “roots of evil” critique of suicide– that suicide was wrong because of the presence of desire or aversion– was unsatisfactory in that it led in the direction of subjectivism. The underlying objection to suicide, it seems to me, is to be found not in the emotional state of the agent but in some intrinsic feature of the suicidal act which renders it morally flawed. I believe, however, there is a way in whi! ch the two approaches can be reconciled. To do this we must locate the wrongness of suicide in delusion (moha) rather in the affective “roots” of desire and hatred.
On this basis suicide will be wrong because it is an irrational act. By this I do not mean that it is performed while the balance of the mind is disturbed, but that it is incoherent in the context of Buddhist teachings. This is because suicide is contrary to basic Buddhist values. What Buddhism values is not death, but life.[57] Buddhism sees death as an imperfection, a flaw in the human condition, something to be overcome rather than affirmed. Death is mentioned in the First Noble Truth as one of the most basic aspects of suffering (dukkha-dukkha). A person who opts for death believing it to be a solution to suffering has fundamentally misunderstood the First Noble Truth. The First Noble Truth teaches that death is the problem, not the solution. The fact that the person who commits suicide will be reborn and live again is not important. What is significant is that through the affirmation of death he has, in his heart, embraced Maara! . From a Buddhist perspective, thi s is clearly irrational. If suicide is irrational in this sense it can be claimed there are objective grounds for regarding it as morally wrong.
Notes
[1]. Wiltshire, Martin G. (1983) “The ‘Suicide’ Problem in the Paali Canon,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 6, pp. 124-140. I am grateful to Lance Cousins, Peter Harvey and Richard Gombrich for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. A fuller discussion of suicide will be found in a forthcoming book on Buddhist ethics by Peter Harvey to be published by Cambridge University Press entitled An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics: Foundations, Values and Issues, and I am grateful to the author for sight of an advance copy of the relevant chapters.
[2]. The literature on suicide includes L. de La Vallee Poussin “Suicide (Buddhist)” in The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings (Edinburgh, Clark: 1922) XII, 24-26; Woodward, F.L. (1922) “The Ethics of Suicide in Greek, Latin and Buddhist Literature,” Buddhist Annual of Ceylon, pp. 4-9; Gernet, Jacques (1960) “Les suicides par le feu chez les bouddhiques chinoises de Ve au Xe siecle,” Melange publies par l’Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises II, pp. 527-558; Filliozat, Jean (1963) “La Morte Volontaire par le feu en la tradition bouddhique indienne,” Journal Asiatique 251, pp. 21-51; Jan, Yün-hua (1964-5) “Buddhist Self-Immolation in Medieval China,” History of Religion 4, pp.243-268; Rahula, W. (1978), “Self-Cremation in Mahaayaana Buddhism,” in Zen and the Taming of the Bull, Gordon Fraser, London; Van Loon, Louis H. (1983) “Some Buddhist Reflections on Suicide,” Religion in S! outhern Africa 4, pp. 3-12; La motte, E. (1987) “Religious Suicide in Early Buddhism,” Buddhist Studies Review 4, pp. 105-126 (first published in French in 1965); Harvey, Peter (1987) “A Note and Response to ‘The Buddhist Perspective on Respect for Persons’,” Buddhist Studies Review 4, pp. 99-103; Becker, Carl B. (1990) “Buddhist views of suicide and euthanasia,” Philosophy East and West 40, pp. 543-556; Becker, Carl B. (1993), Breaking the Circle: death and the afterlife in Buddhism. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press; Stephen Batchelor, “Existence, Enlightenment and Suicide: the Dilemma of~Naa.naviira Thera,” unpublished paper given at The Buddhist Forum, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, December 8th 1993. Woodward refers to a discussion of the Channa episode in “Edmunds, Buddhist and Christian Gospels, ii, 58” but I cannot locate this passage. For more general treatments see Thakur, Upendra (1963), The History of Suicide in India. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal; Suicide in Different Cultures, ed. Norman L. Farberow, Baltimore: University Park Press, 1975; Young, Katherine K. (1989), “Euthanasia: Traditional Hindu Views and the Contemporary Debate,” in Hindu Ethics. Purity, Abortion, and Euthanasia, eds. Harold G. Coward, Julius J. Lipner, and Katherine K. Young, McGill Studies in the History of Religions, ed. Katherine K. Young, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 71-130, esp. pp.103-7. There is additional literature on ritual suicide in Japan (seppuku), but I see this practice as bound up with the Japanese Samurai code and as owing little to Buddhism (Becker apparently disagrees).
[3]. 1922:25. In a more recent encyclopedia entry Marilyn J. Harran writes: “Buddhism in its various forms affirms that, while suicide as self-sacrifice may be appropriate for the person who is an arhat, one who has attained enlightenment, it is still very much the exception to the rule” s.v. “Suicide (Buddhism and Confucianism)” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. in chief Mircea Eliade (New York: Macmillan), vol. 14 p.129.
[4]. 1922:8.
[5]. Views of this kind with certain variations are expressed by Poussin (1922), Wiltshire (1983), van Loon (1983), Lamotte (1987), Taniguchi, Shoyu (1987) “A Study of Biomedical Ethics from a Buddhist Perspective,” unpublished MA Thesis, Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union and the Institute of Buddhist Studies, p.86-89, Young (1989), Florida, Robert E. (1993) “Buddhist Approaches to Euthanasia,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 22, pp. 35-47, p.41.
[6]. 1983:134.
[7]. On the criteria for moral evaluation in Buddhism see Peter Harvey “Criteria for Judging the Unwholesomeness of Actions in the Texts of Theravaada Buddhism,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics 2 1995: 140-151. See also Keown, Damien (1995), Buddhism & Bioethics. (London: Macmillan), pp. 37-64.
[8]. It may be objected that it is impossible to murder without desire or hatred. Regardless of whether this is psychologically true, the theoretical possibility of desireless murders being regarded as not immoral reveals the inadequacy of the subjectivist account. Another defect in the account is that the gravity of murders would be nothing more than a function of the amount of desire present. A “crime of passion,” therefore, would be far more serious than a random “drive-by” shooting. The fact that courts often take an opposite view gives cause to question this conclusion.
[9]. This is suggested at Miln. 195f.
[10]. As suggested, for example, by Florida, Robert E. (1993) “Buddhist Approaches to Euthanasia,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 22, pp. 35-47, p.45. Cf. Poussin, “In the case of “Saakyamuni we have to deal with a voluntary death” (op cit). We must bear in mind, however, that the Buddha had rejected Maara’s overtures in this direction at the start of his teaching career (D.ii.102) and did so again three months before his death (D.ii.99).
[11]. The story of the hungry tigress is found in the Jaataka-maala and the Suvar.naprabhaasottama-suutra.
[12]. See Fairbairn, Gavin J. (1995), Contemplating Suicide. London: Routledge, pp. 144ff. Fairbairn suggests that seppuku is not suicide since the samurai does not seek to end his life, but only to perform his duty.
[13]. For example S.v.344 (Diighaavu); S.iv.55, M.iii.263 (Channa); S.iii.119 (Vakkali); S.iii.124 (Assajji); M.iii.258, S.v.380 (Anaathapi.n.dika).
[14]. V.5.230(167):2. bhagavataa kho aavuso gilaanupa.t.thaana.m va.n.nita.m. References in this format are to the BUDSIR edition of the Thai Tipi.taka on CD-ROM. The present reference is to volume V, p.230, paragraph (or item) 167, line 2.
[15]. It is unclear whether Godhika is suffering from an illness or not.
[16]. In the case of Channa item 2 is absent and Saariputta and Mahaa Cunda visit on their own initiative.
[17]. 1983:132.
[18]. The same may be said of the 137 occurrences of kaalam akaasi (“died”).
[19]. I take this (with the commentary) in a literal sense to mean that a knife (or similar sharp instrument) was actually employed. The commentary states that Channa “severed his windpipe” (ka.n.thanaala.m chindi). It is possible that “using the knife” could be a locution which denotes suicide by any means, but I think this unlikely given that, as Wiltshire notes (1983:130), a razor is part of a monk’s “kit” (although apparently not referred to as sattha). It seems likely that “using the knife” is meant in a literal sense, since the layman who commits suicide at M.ii.109f is not said to have “used the knife” but to have cut or ripped himself open (attaana.m upphaalesi).
[20]. 1983:132.
[21]. Other canonical suicides include those of the unnamed monks in the Vinaya whose deaths led to the promulgation of the third paaraajika. At M.ii.109f (supra) a husband kills his wife and then himself so they will not be separated. Cases of attempted suicide leading to enlightenment include those of the monk Sappadaasa in the Theragaathaa (408), and the nun Siihaa in the Theriigaathaa (77) (both discussed by Sharma, 1987:123f. Cf Rahula 1978:22f). At Ud. 92f. the aged Arhat Dabba rises in the air and disappears in a puff of smoke. There is a similar passage on Bakkula at M.iii.124-8.
[22]. Maa bhaayi Vakkali — apaapaka.m te mara.na.m bhavissati apaapikaa kaalakiriyaa.
[23]. It may be intended as simple reassurance to Vakkali that he has nothing to fear from death, or a prediction that he will die an Arhat.
[24]. Kindred Sayings, vol. IV p.33. In her introductory essay to the Majjhima translation Horner seems to suggest that the compilers of the canon had actually “rigged” the text in order to exonerate Channa. Of the Buddha’s exonerating statement she writes “they make him [the Buddha] sanction the unworthy act of the poor little sufferer” (p. xi.).
[25]. The use of the word “blameworthy,” however, is unusual. The Buddha does not elsewhere describe those who are reborn as “blameworthy.”
[26]. For example, when asked about worshipping the six directions in the Sigaalovaada-sutta he deftly switches the context to social relationships.
[27]. This distinction is made clear in Catholic teachings. The Declaration on Euthanasia prepared by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states: “Intentionally causing one’s own death, or suicide, is therefore equally as wrong as murder — although, as is generally recognized, at times there are psychological factors present that can diminish responsibility or even completely remove it” (Boston: St. Paul’s Books and Media, 1980), p.7.
[28]. This is similar to Christ’s reaction to the woman taken in adultery: in defending the woman with the words “Neither do I condemn thee,” (John 8, 11) Christ is not endorsing adultery but displaying compassion for the woman who has sinned.
[29]. 1983:132.
[30]. Three Channas are known in the canon: a paribbaajaka, Gotama’s charioteer, and the elder (thera) who commits suicide. Details in DPPN.
[31]. Sutta 144.
[32]. In the Majjhima-nikaaya it occurs in The Division of the Sixfold Base (Salaayatanavagga), the fifth and last division of the “final fifty” (upari-pa.n.naasa). Here, it is the second of the five “advisory” (ovaada) style discourses which form the first half of the division. In the Sa.myutta-nikaaya it is found in the Salaayatana-sa.myutta, where the rationale for its inclusion seems to be the passage in which Saariputta gives teachings to Channa about the six sense-consciousnesses [S.18.72(107):10ff.].
[33]. aabhaadhiko hoti dukkhito baalhagilaano.
[34]. The nature of Channa’s complaint is not easy to diagnose from these symptoms. One medical opinion I have received is as follows: “The head pain is typical of migraine, which is universal and has been recognized for centuries. Other causes may be an intracranial tumour causing raised intracranial pressure, but this is often accompanied by vomiting and specific neurological signs which appear to be missing in this description. The abdominal pain is more difficult. Peritonitis causes this kind of severe, unremitting pain, and may result from any cause which leads to peritoneal infection such as a ruptured appendix, perforated ulcer, leaking bowel etc. Another cause of such pain could be a strangulated intestine, often due to vascular causes in older people or to twisting of the bowel with loss of blood supply. A third cause in this region of the world could be intestinal infection such as cholera or typhoid, often accompanied by diarrhoea. The general! body pain is most difficult. There are not many things that cause generalized pain. This is typical of myalgia, aching of the muscles, and it may occur in severe generalized infections, often of viral origin, and in rare metabolic diseases of muscle in which certain enzymes are lacking. The combination is strange.” I am grateful to my brother Dr Paul A. Keown for this opinion (personal communication 23rd September 1995). A second opinion, for which I am indebted to Dr Steven Emmett is as follows: “Both the head and abdominal pain are ‘sharp’ which tends to point to a vascular phenomenon, but the pain throughout the body tends to points to an infectious etiology — though any severe process can have concomitant body pain — my guesses would be lupus erythematosus, viral illness, and possibly syphilis, though I don’t know if it were present in that area of the world at that time, and what would be the chances of holy men contracting it — assuming two people had similar illnesse! s at the same time (I don’t know h ow far apart in time the two suttas were) — but if they were coeval, then an infectious illness, presumably viral, though possibly bacterial, would be the cause” (personal communication, 14th September 1995).
[35]. Sattha.m aavuso Saariputta aaharissaami naavaka.nkhaami jiivitan ti.
[36]. Maayasmaa Channo sattha.m aaharesi, yaapetaayasmaa Channo yaapenta.m maya.m aayasmanta.m Channa.m icchaama.
[37]. In her translation of the Majjhima passage, Horner seems to suggest that Channa regards his previous reverence for the teacher as the justification for his planned course of action: “No, friend Saariputta. I am not without proper food. I have it. I am not without proper clothing. I have it. I am not without fit attendants. I have them. I myself, friend, waited on the Master for many a long day with service that was delightful, not tedious. That, friend, is the proper thing for a disciple to do. ‘In so far as he served the Master with a service that was delightful, not tedious, blameless (must be accounted) the brother Channa’s use of the knife’: so should you uphold, friend Saariputta.” Kindred Sayings, vol.II p.31. The text reads: Eta.m hi aavuso saavakassa pa.tiruupa.m satthaara.m paricareyya manaapeneva no amanaapena ta.m anupavajja.m channo bhikkhu sattha.m aaharissatiti evameta.m aavuso saariputta dhaarehiiti. Horner’s reading arises fr! om tak ing the ya.m — ta.m construction as a separate sentence having the sense of “In so far as — to that extent.” However, the ta.m is not present in all manuscripts, and in any event a more plausible reading is to take the ya.m clause as correlative to the initial Eta.m rather than the ta.m, in the sense of illustrating what is “proper” (pa.tiruupa) to a disciple rather than announcing a state of affairs which is subsequently justified in the ta.m clause. Bhikkhus~Naa”namoli and Bodhi do not follow Horner in their The Middle Length Discourses of The Buddha (Wisdom, 1995).
[38]. MA.10.237(390). I am grateful to Lance Cousins for his observation that the commentary apparently takes the term as deriving from the root VRAJ (to go, walk, proceed). This term includes associations with rebirth: “with punar ‘to return to life'” (Monier Williams, s.v. VRAJ). Another possible derivation is from PAD. See CPD s.v. “an-upavajja.” Woodward suggests: “Sa-upavajjo (culpable: really ‘attended by a supporter’)” (1922:8).
[39]. Nanu te Saariputta channena bhikkhunaa sammukhaaya eva anupavajjataa byaakataa ti.
[40]. DPPN s.v. “Channa.”
[41]. Upavajjakulaaniiti upasa”nkamitabbakulaani. This seems to confirm the derivation from Sanskrit upavrajya, “to be gone to.” Cf. CPD “upa-vajja.”
[42]. Or, “who are blameworthy.”
[43]. Honti hete Saariputta Channassa bhikkhuno mittakulaani suhajjakulaani upavajjakulaaniiti. Na kho panaaha.m Saariputta ettaavataa saupavajjoti vadaami. Yo kho Saariputta ima~nca kaaya.m nikkhipati a~n~na~nca kaaya.m upaadiyati tamaha.m saupavajjoti vadaami. Ta.m Channassa bhikkhuno natthi. Anupavajja.m Channena bhikkhunaa sattha.m aaharitanti evameta.m Saariputta dhaarehiiti [S.18.74(111)].
[44]. It introduces this explanation in its elucidation of the word “Therefore” (tasmaa). “Therefore” means that [this teaching is given] because Channa was unable to bear the great pain and said he would use the knife. The venerable Channa was not enlightened (puthujjana), so Mahaa Cunda tells him to pay attention to this teaching. (Tasmaati yasmaa maara.nantikavedana.m adhivaasetu.m asakkonto sattha.m aaharaamiiti vadati, tasmaa. Putthujano aayasmaa, tena idampi manasikarohiiti diipeti.)
[45]. The same claim is made about Vakkali and Godhika. The concept of the samasiisii is put to good use by the commentary in these cases. Buddhaghosa explains there are three kind of samasiisii. i) Iriyaapatha-samasiisii: someone selects one of the four postures and resolves not to change posture until they attain Arhatship. The change of posture and Arhatship occur together. ii) Rogasamasiisii: someone recovers from an illness and attains Arhatship at the same time. iii) Jiivita-samasiisii: the destruction of the aasavas (aasavakkhaya) and the end of life (jiivitakkhaya) occur simultaneously. It is the third which is intended here [SA.11.175(159):6-11].
[46]. Kindred Sayings V. p.33
[47]. Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, Part 1, Section 4, Member 1. Quoted in Battin, Margaret Pabst (1982), Ethical Issues in Suicide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, p. 53.
[48]. There are cases of “sudden enlightenment” reported in Pali sources as well as Mahaayaana ones. Rahula writes: “Examples of this kind of ‘sudden’ awakening or ‘sudden’ attainment of arahantship are not lacking also in Pali commentaries.” He cites three examples, the last from the Theragaathaa commentary which is of relevance to our present theme: “Mahaanaama Thera, living on a mountain, was thoroughly disgusted with his life because he was not successful in getting rid of such impure thoughts as lust, and just at the moment when he was about to commit suicide by jumping from the top of a rock, he attained arahantship.” Rahula, W. (1978), Zen and the Taming of the Bull. Towards the Definition of Buddhist Thought, London: Gordon Fraser, p.22. At S.v.69f someone attains enlightenment at the moment of death.
[49]. 1983:134. Wiltshire does not say where this is “made quite clear.” In fact– as already noted– the main text makes no pronouncement on the matter one way or the other, and contains nothing inconsistent with the view that Channa was an Arhat before the time he began to contemplate suicide. Poussin, in his entry on suicide in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, gives the suicides of Vakkali and Godhika as examples of suicide by Arhats, but gives no evidence for his claim that they were Arhats. In his capsule summary of Godhika’s suicide, moreover, he states “Godhika reached arhatship just after he had begun cutting his throat.” This hardly counts as a suicide by an Arhat. What is most surprising, however, is the absence of any reference to Channa in his entire discussion.
[50]. D.iii.235. At D.iii.133 nine things are mentioned, and the commentary says that even a stream-winner is not capable of such things (DA.iii.913).
[51]. With reference to Gosaala, Poussin cites Uvaasagadasaao, app. ii. p. 23 and comments: “Suicide is permitted to ascetics who have reached the highest degree of perfection” (1922:25).
[52]. This line of though, which I cannot pursue here, was suggested to me by Richard Gombrich’s article “The Buddha and the Jains. A Reply to Professor Bronkhorst” (Asiatische Studien XLVIII, 4, 1994: 1069-1096). The Pali canon suicide cases could provide interesting evidence in connection with Bronkhorst’s theory regarding “non-authentic” elements in the Buddhist texts. The criterion for such examples is as follows: “Perhaps the only hope ever to identify non-authentic elements in the Buddhist texts is constituted by the special cases where elements which are recorded to have been rejected by the Buddha, yet found their way into the texts, and, moreover, are clearly identifiable as belonging to one or more movements other than Buddhism” (quoted by Gombrich, p.1070). The suicide cases seem to fit this requirement in every way: suicide is rejected by the Buddha (in the Vinaya and elsewhere, see note infra), finds its way into the texts (in the three suic! ide cases), and is identifiable as a Jain practice. Whether these cases add weight to Bronkhorst’s theory, however, is another matter.
[53]. Vin.iii.71.
[54]. Certainly from the time of St. Augustine onwards. The anomalous cases in the O.T. are explained by St.Thomas as exceptions resulting from a direct command by God. On suicide in the early Church see Amundsen, Darrel W. (1989), “Suicide and Early Christian Values,” in Suicide and Euthanasia, ed. Baruch A. Brody, Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 77-153. With reference to Judaism and Christianity see Droge, A.J. and J.D. Tabor A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews in Antiquity. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991. With reference to classical antiquity see van Hooff, Anton J.L. From Autothanasia to Suicide. Self-Killing in Classical Antiquity. London: Routledge, 1990.
[55]. Reasons why Buddhism might be opposed to suicide include the following: 1) It is an act of violence and thus contrary to the principle of ahi.msaa. 2) It is against the First Precept. 3) It is contrary to the third paaraajika (Cf. Miln. 195). 4) It is stated that “Arahants do not cut short their lives” (na . . . apakka.m paatenti) Miln. 44, cf. D.ii.32/DA.810 cited by Horner (Milinda’s Questions, I.61n.). Saariputta says that an Arhat neither wishes for death not wishes not to die: it will come when it comes (Thag. vv.1002-3). 5) Suicide destroys something of great value in the case of a virtuous human life and prevents such a person acting in the service of others (Miln. 195f.) Wiltshire states that altruism is also cited in the Paayaasi Sutta as a reason for not taking one’s life (1983:131). With reference to the discussion here (D.ii.330-2) he comments “This is the only passage in the Sutta Pi.taka in which the subje! ct of suicide is considered in the abstract, and even then obliquely” (1983:130). Kassapa states that the virtuous should not kill themselves to obtain the results of their good kar ma as this deprives the world of their good influence (D.ii.330f). 6) Suicide brings life to a premature end. As Poussin expresses it: (op cit) “A man must live his alloted span of life . . . To that effect Buddha employs to Paayaasi the simile of the woman who cuts open her body in order to see whether her child is a boy or a girl” (D.ii.331). 7) Self-annihilation is a form of vibhava-ta.nhaa. 8) Self-destruction is associated with ascetic practices which are rejected since “Buddhism had better methods of crushing lust and destroying sin” (Poussin, op cit). 9). There is empirical evidence provided by I Tsing. Poussin notes: “The Pilgrim I-tsing says that Indian Buddhists abstain from suicide and, in general, from self-torture” (op cit). 10) As noted above, Saariputta’s immediate reaction is to dissuade Channa in the strongest terms from taking his life. Saariputta’s reaction suggests that suicide was not regarded among the Buddha’s senior disciples as an option even ! meriti ng discussion.
[56]. Foundation of Morals, Section/Paragraph 5, quoted in Battin, Margaret Pabst (1982), Ethical Issues in Suicide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. p. 74.
[57]. On life as a basic value for Buddhism see Buddhism & Bioethics, pp. 44-50.
(Damien Keown – University of London, Goldsmiths)
jbe.gold.ac.uk
Buddhism and Suicide — The Case of Channa 1/2
