Buddhism And Suicide

[Asafa]

Forgive my newbie question, but I'm interested to know how Buddhists view suicide?

Do they believe that people who suicide will be punished e.g. sent to ###### or forced to reincarnate to experience an even harder life?

[organic]

Generally, people commit suicide to escape problems, which in turn stem from karma. Suicide does nothing to change this karma, so I'd say that person would have to face similar problems in a future life, with additions from having murdered someone, their (former) self.

[Asafa]

what about the people with mental illnesses who suicide?

[rod_kalashnikov]

 

[organic]

what about the people with mental illnesses who suicide?

Hmmm, difficult one, but I reckon it's the case that you expiate bad karma by suffering illness, so maybe that would also cover committing suicide when not being able to be responsible for your actions. Anyone care to chip in, particularly where volition and karma are concerned?

On a broader point, maybe some would claim that anyone who goes to the point of suicide is mentally ill?

[Gohonzon]

The subject of suicide is indeed a difficult one to answer.But what we can learn from it is the power that the three Buddhist poisons can hold over our lives: greed,ill will and delusion.

A person who takes their own life are,sadly, in possesion of a great delusion.The delusion that by taking their own life it will end their own particular suffering.From a Buddhist point of view all beings-unless abiding in a peaceful nirvanic state-are subject to rebirth in saha,or the samsaric world-that of suffering.Life-and all in life-is by definition subject to impermenance,and that in turn will create suffering.It is only by using those conditions towards enightenment, as they arise, that we may attain Buddhahood in this life.By turning ,and changing,our bad karma into something positive can we overcome suffering.We can in effect change poison into medicine.

We are extremely fortunate in having this opportunity to learn and understand what the Buddha taught,and to put into practice that which has the power to liberate us-and all humanity- from suffering.

May all beings be free from suffering and be happy.

Sorry but I haven't sussed how to put quotes into those little windows at the top of the page yet.

'Though they may not understand the principles of Buddhism and may not know that they are suffering from delusion, if only they have faith, then without a doubt they will be able to free themselves simultaneously from the illnesses of the three categories of illusion -illusions of thought and desire, illusions innumerable as particles of dust and sand, and illusions about the true nature of existence.'

[paulfr]

On a broader point, maybe some would claim that anyone who goes to the point of suicide is mentally ill?

It is very hard to make that case even if lawyers

use this reasoning in court every day. I say this

in light of the supposition that most if not all suicides are

committed by people trying to escape problems they

feel they cannot face or overcome. This seems to me

an exceedingly rational act. So how can they be viewed

as mentally ill ??

Unless you hold the opinion that all life is sacred and

must never be taken arbitrarily, then a person choosing

to end their pain rather than dealing with it is acting in

a perfectly rational manner in spite of their intense

emotional pain.

Comments solicited.

[kenk3z]

It also brings up the question of what does the family do in the situation where someone is on artificial life support, but brain dead. While always terrible, it must be worse for a Buddhist to have to decide to turn off life support.

kenk3z

[bina]

somewhere in this buddhist forum i asked andyinkat something along the same lines about euthenasia for wounded animals; i noticed that my workers refused to 'kill off' any of the really sick or woulnded small animals; but had no problem killing something for food. sick or wounded animals (rabbits, gerbils, birds etc) were put in a separate cage, with water and food, and left to their own devices. now some of these guys told me that the same goes for relatives that have AIDS; they are more or less taken care of but nothing beyond that; they had a hard time when i put a goat 'down' after a prolonged illness that the vet felt couldnt be dealt with. their attitude was,if it lives, lives, if it dies, dies.

[bina]

Found the thread: this is andyinkat, answering me about euthenasia in animals but applicable to humans: andy, i hope u dont mind me pulling a thread and moving it? but u give good answers.

"

Firstly it is important to have some background understanding of the nature of ethical rules in Buddhism. Judaism, Islam and Roman Catholicism all have clear-cut rules covering many aspects of life for all followers of those religions. Whether you believe that they were handed down by the divine or grew out of communities, the common dimension is that they all originated as religions within society - i.e. they had long-term social interests at heart.

Note that Jesus did not lay down prescripive rules as his message was not primarily social - he believed that the end of the world was imminent and his ethics (leave your father, mother, wife; give all your possessions away) reflect such short-term expectations.

Lord Buddha's agenda was different again. He was a renunciate. There was an established social system in his world - the Caste system and there were very tightly regulated rules for everyone depending on their caste. By inviting people to join his Sangha, the Buddha was effectively inviting individuals to abandon their society altogether - to renounce family, possessions, status, everything.

Now here lies a key difference between Buddhism and the other religions I mentioned; the latter are egalitarian - everyone can follow the same rules, the same path and achieve the same goal in this lifetime. Not so Buddhism. Lord Buddha and the vast majority of Buddhist paths that have evolved since his time clearly acknowledged that only a select few can make a full commitment. the majority would or could not - in any single lifetime.

But the Buddha brought in quite a remarkable policy here - rather than develop a system whereby his movement would keep themselves separate from the masses he deliberately devised a system that made his Sangha dependent on the majority. The Sangha is dependent on the lay community for physical needs - food, clothes, shelter.

Thus the Buddha instituted a system of rules fo rhis Sangha - the monks (and nuns when they existed) which were not intended to be universal laws. Thus monks are not allowed to harm any living creature; they are not allowed to garden or plough or till the land as they would kill insects. Obviously this rule cannot be universalzed - the monks are dependent on the laity to produce the food, thereby killing life.

While he prescribed 227 Vinaya rules for his sangha, Buddha did not give rules as such to the laity; rather like Jesus he offered general ethical guidelines which needed to be interpreted within the context of the mainstream social mores and, to an extent, within the context of one's individual conscience and level of commitment.

What all this speel amounts to in a nutshell is that there is no Buddhist rule on animal rights, abortion, euthanasia or any single ethical issue.

However I can go a little further; Tibetan Buddhism and Thai Theravadan Buddhism in practice seem to take opposite positions on the killing of animals, yet they both follow Buddhist logic. Only this week His Holiness the Dalai Lama appears to have persuaded KFC not to open a brach in Lhasa, capital of Tibet. Now the geography and climate of Tibet are such that it is impractical for the society as a whole to be vegetarian so the main line of reasoning is to minimise suffering by killing as few animals as possible. Thus they will kill a yak because one beast will feed many people (and they use all parts of the carcass for other things) but they don't like to kill chickens or fish because many have to die to feed one stomach.

In all cases however, intention is central as it is intention and not the outcome that determines the karma of the act. Enjoying killing causes bad karma; killing reluctantly and out of percieved necessity is karmically less serious - but kill karmically bad, and a butcher can expect a very low rebirth. This logic can lead to the (in my mind) ethically dubious consequence that a person is more concerned with their own karmic consequences than the interests of the other - be it suffering animal or human, but I see this as a failure to understand the spirit of the Buddhadharma.

I am also aware that in many SE Asian 'Buddhist' societies there is a history of what to western sensibilities (and mine) would be seen as staggering animal cruelty but however widespread it might be it is not condoned in any Buddhist teaching as far as I know.

It also tends to be the case that Mahayana Buddhism is less 'eschatological' - the goal is to become a bodhisattva (buddha-to-be) and continue to be reborn within the world rather than 'escape' it, so it has developed more 'this worldly' interests including an interest in the spiritual development of the laity. Thus there are Mahayana sutras which advocate vegetarianism and compassion towards animals for all followers rather than focus on the monastic sangha.

Hope this helps. BTW The colours are mine, not andy's.

In Thailand the logic works differently. They accept a scale of consciousness whereby a highly developed mammal is higher up the cycle of rebirths than a fish or bird thus they justify killing 'lower' animals more easily than 'higher' ones.[/color

]

my own comment:

Taking a human's life, then, would be really not right, even if someone sees it as 'mercy killing'; it would give u bad karma more or less. even if u take your own life.

[Gohonzon]

Interesting reply,Bina.Glad to see that you as a senior poster haven't managed to completely work out these quote and colour trickeries either

However,there are -I think- think levels of bad karma that result from actions.Killing ones parent/or parents or a member of the ordained sangha creating very bad consequences.Whereas mercy killing would,I speculate,be an act that does not incur he same karmic retribution.Often it is the intentions of the act that determine it's eventual outcome-but I don't want to go too far down this road and end up (as some leading monks do) justifying the death penalty by the same logic.

Yes,it is the first priority of Buddhists to respect life-irrespective.On the other hand an act of genuine mercy surely wouldn't would not carry the same karmic burden as an act of malicious murder out of anger,revenge or hatred?

In a way it's very difficult to imagine someone dwelling in the world of ######- and as a consequence taking their own life-suffering more as a result of their action.But as someone pointed out earlier,the same karma that caused the act of suicide will still have to be worked out in future lives.

However,how do we view the taking of ones own life as an act of sacrifice against a greater evil? lt was during the Vietnam war that the whole world viewed the spectacle of a Buddhist monk setting himself alight in Hanoi (I think) as a protest agaist both the war and American aggressionThis was an altruistic act of great compassion.Perhaps misguided-but I choose not to judge.It would be near impossible to judge such an act-in terms of karmic retribution-as being the same as an act committed out of internalised anger I think.

Nevertheless,there are many grey areas in Buddhism-vegetarianism being one such similar grey area-as are suicide and mercy killing.

In dharma.

[Gohonzon]

PS

why was the word h.ell censored

[rod_kalashnikov]

 

[bina]

way back when, as a teenager, i studied the midrasha etc. (talmud...); somewhere inthere we had to talk about take a life to save a life -- good or bad... we cannot give our own life to save an other life, but can to save many... if my memory serves me-- judaism also does not 'permit' suicide... they are buried 'outside the fence' in cemeteries so often suicides are covered up as 'sudden unknown death' and the families do not permit autopsies (an other religious hangup) and it all stays with in the orthodox community as 'hush hush'.

that's why, when a woman wants an abortion, she goes to her sect's rabbi: if the mother's life is in immediate and certain danger, than many times, it is permitted, etc. euthenasia in israel is still not accepted; my friend's son died two days before a final decision by high court of law and many rabbis finally agreed to take him off machines after 5 years of horrible horrible life. And my friend the mother, a religious woman, said it was a good thing in the long run that he died 'naturally' as she was still ambivalent as to the ramifications of the deed that would have been done.

BTW the post i posted was from andyinkat-- just my own comment at the bottom.

I suspect that many views about euthenasia have only been raised in the past few decades or so with the advent of artificial means of maintaining life. before then, to euthenize someone, you had to really 'kill' the person useing overdose meds, or shoot or stab (even on request) from the person. you didnt just take the person off the respirator and wait to see what happens. nature takes its course less now with other options available. I suspect in thailand the question will arise more and more if it hasnt already, at least for wealthy people who will be hospitalized while terminal, as opposed to those that will die at home due to lack of funding for hospitalization. and therefore the question of euthenasia will not arise.

[Gohonzon]

I believe the death penalty is justified where the enormity of a crime removes the perpertator's right to live.

On the question of the death penalty.I can only reply from a Buddhist perspective and not enter into the more mundane issues concerning whether if it deters,or otherwise,others from committing similar crimes that may carry the mandatory death penalty,etc.

As I mentioned, a head monk- who serves those on death row in Bang Kwang prison-justified the death penalty on the basis of intent and the good of society as a whole.For instance,he claimed that the death penalty for those convicted of drug pushing justified the death penalty, because that by putting the convicted dealer to death would save many other lives of young people who may die through the use of drugs that he supplied.

His argument was fundementally flawed in many ways (given also that we're talking Thailand here.) At the most base level: I thought that's what prison was for,that is,to protect society from those who may otherwise be a danger to the community in some way!

Buddhism does not adhere to the eye for an eye,revenge philosophy of some other religions.In fact a serial murderer,who also set out to take Buddha Shayamuni's life-Angulimala-later became a Buddhist saint who also attained enlightenment.

Buddhism is also a religion of change that focuses on the ability of anyone to change their karma.That is,that anyone can tap into their own inherent Buddha nature at any time.Further,anyone can also attain Buddhahood during the life-time in which they exist.

To take a life denies someone the opportunity to change and is,therefore,goes against initiating the law of cause and effect that creates value.It has been said that five minutes meditation,or chanting a specific mantra (nam-myho-renge-kyo,as in my own practice) can eradicate much accumulated bad karma and effect good causes to the benefit of self,the environment and all those that inhabit it.

It 's a sad reflection on some parts of Thai Theravada Buddhism, that have become so part of the ruling secular powers, as to be indistiguishable from it in its justification of that which differs from the compassionate and enlightened teachings of the Buddha himself.

[drummer]

On a broader point, maybe some would claim that anyone who goes to the point of suicide is mentally ill?

It is very hard to make that case even if lawyers

use this reasoning in court every day. I say this

in light of the supposition that most if not all suicides are

committed by people trying to escape problems they

feel they cannot face or overcome. This seems to me

an exceedingly rational act. So how can they be viewed

as mentally ill ??

Unless you hold the opinion that all life is sacred and

must never be taken arbitrarily, then a person choosing

to end their pain rather than dealing with it is acting in

a perfectly rational manner in spite of their intense

emotional pain.

Comments solicited.

You can argue that anyone NOT wanting to commit suicide is mentally ill....

Actually, this seems to be closer to the truth, as pessimists generally have a more accurate picture of reality than optimists.

On the other hand, mental illness is defined by any personality trait that is so pronounced that it interferes with the normal operation of day to day life. Emotional pain, depression, anxiety etc that leads to death might just qualify. Especially considering that by far, most suicides don't arise out of uncommon conditions.

[drummer]

Note that Jesus did not lay down prescripive rules as his message was not primarily social - he believed that the end of the world was imminent and his ethics (leave your father, mother, wife; give all your possessions away) reflect such short-term expectations.

I don't think you can use the apocalypse argument- many societies advocate giving away all your posessions. Some societies old that the more you give away, the higher your social status becomes. they certainly aren't giving away things because 'you can't take it with you'. The tradition is in India, too, although for different reasons. Practically speaking, giving to the poor / not valuing personal posession has so many utilitarian advantages that its a surprise when its *not* part of religion... (He was right, though- the Romans basically ended the Israeli/Judean world a few decades later)

[organic]

Actually, this seems to be closer to the truth, as pessimists generally have a more accurate picture of reality than optimists.

Would you like to justify that one? It was a claim in a book, I believe, by some psychologist whose name I can't remember. Probably helped sell a few copies...

[Gohonzon]

Actually, this seems to be closer to the truth,  as pessimists generally have a more accurate picture of reality than optimists. 

Hmm.Reminds me of something that Buddha Shakyamuni said to a hearer(s) of what he was expounding.It went along the lines of:"Don't believe what I am saying,go away and test the truth of it for yourself.' *

Of course this wasn't so much encouraging pessimism per se,more to have a' pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will.' (Gramsci)

I would think that it's when pessimism permeates the core of someones very existence-thus leaving a person without hope-that suicide may become a very real and deluded option.

I think that it was Max Weber who said in one of his black moods,that everytime that he put his head around to look into the tunnel that there was a train coming the otherway.Sadly,he later went on to kill himself.

*Does anyone know which sutra this if from btw?

[sabaijai]

Does anyone know which sutra this if from btw?

Sounds like the general message of the Kalama Sutta (the Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry)

Kalama Sutta

[drummer]

Actually, this seems to be closer to the truth,  as pessimists generally have a more accurate picture of reality than optimists. 

Would you like to justify that one? It was a claim in a book, I believe, by some psychologist whose name I can't remember. Probably helped sell a few copies...

Something I learned in class. It been a few years, but I remember something about college students being tested for optimism/pessimism, then made to do predictions on whether they won a game or not.

It makes a lot of sense to me. Success isn't easy. Optimism is a lot more *useful* in a lot of ways, but pessimism tends to be more accurate. Life ain't a bed of roses for most people.

Of course, you take pessimism too far and you are distorting reality, too. Its not like pessimism is always right, its just that tends to be right more often than optimism. Me, I'm a I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it optimist.

Of course, all this depends on your definition of optimist vs pessimist....

[organic]

I've seen a bit more about this on another forum, where, similarly, the study given was college students asked to estimate their future job, salary, etc., and then a few years later they were tracked to see the actuals. The mildly pessimistic turmed out most accurate. Problem I find with this one is the general mindset from when we're that age: we're all going to be in a big name rock band, or multimillionaires, or discover the cure for cancer.

I'd bet my bottom baht that if you checked the mindset of rags-to-riches millionaires, you'd find 99% were incurable optimists!

For myself, I expect the odd kick in the teeth (metaphorically) and I'm just gonna plug on regardless.

Never let life's hardships disturb you. After all, no one can avoid problems, not even saints or sages.

... Suffer what there is to suffer, enjoy what there is to enjoy. Regard both suffering and joy as facts of life and continue chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, no matter what happens. Then you will experience boundless joy from the Law.

Nichiren Daishonin, Happiness in this World.

[Gohonzon]

Its not like pessimism is always right,  its just that tends to be right more often than optimism.

Is it then possible to have both faith-in the Buddhist sense of the word-and to remain pessimistic?

'Lack of faith is the basic failing that causes a person to fall into h ell.' Nicheren

[drummer]

Organic: That is a very astute observation. The studies I learned about were definitely about college students. (This is why I generally don't put much stock into sociology )

Gohonzon: I would think so. For my part I maintain a high level of respect for humanity and hope that things can, have, will, and are getting better. I just feel its gonna take a very long time and be a difficult process with many setbacks. I guess you could say I believe in the process of slowly reaching enlightenment for society. Call me an optimist, though ...

[Herbs]

This whole debate is somewhat complicated by there being accounts in the Pali canon of certain bhikkhus ending their own lives (Channa in the Samyutta-nikaya).

Best wishes

[OxfordWill]

Actually, this seems to be closer to the truth, as pessimists generally have a more accurate picture of reality than optimists.

Could you elucidate please?

[drummer]

Reap up the post... its been discussed a bit already If you have any more questions, please ask

[OxfordWill]

Oops, missed those.

Optimism and pessimism are of the same ilk (a way of presenting one's feelings), and I don't think they can be measured so easily. As a previous poster mentioned, the mindset largely depends the degree to which one is either optimistic about ones future career prospects (for example) or not so.

If you are optimistic about something, you hope. By hoping you risk letting your desire overshadow the reality of a situation. If however you are pessimistic about something (or everything, for that matter) you risk not providing yourself with the necessary drive or determination to achieve your particular end.

How can such things be quantified? Most buddhists I know are eternal optimists, it would hardly be correct to conclude therefore that they all lack a sound grasp of their reality (despite what they will claim to te contrary..).

[Bizz]

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/suicide.html

[drummer]

Oops, missed those.

Optimism and pessimism are of the same ilk (a way of presenting one's feelings), and I don't think they can be measured so easily. As a previous poster mentioned, the mindset largely depends the degree to which one is either optimistic about ones future career prospects (for example) or not so.

If you are optimistic about something, you hope. By hoping you risk letting your desire overshadow the reality of a situation. If however you are pessimistic about something (or everything, for that matter) you risk not providing yourself with the necessary drive or determination to achieve your particular end.

How can such things be quantified? Most buddhists I know are eternal optimists, it would hardly be correct to conclude therefore that they all lack a sound grasp of their reality (despite what they will claim to te contrary..).

Hmmmm. I kinda figured they were a mental filter- something that actually colors perception, rather than just a way to present information. Rose colored glasses would be the metaphor.

For my use of the words, there is a difference between optimistic and happy, although they often accompany one another.

I think as long as you know you are optimistic/pessimistic you can adjust for any (most of the) affect on perception, although thats a lot easier said than done

Your questions on how those things can be quantified is a very good one. It is exactly why I didn't not spend much time in sociology classes- its really tricky. You can measure the traits easily enough, but attributing a cause to them is the real problem. When it gets down to it, all you can really know is yourself. (And even that remains a mystery to most people!)