Thai Buddhists

[Geekfreaklover]

I read the following recently.

'The act of committing suicide is seen in Buddhist Thailand as worse than the act of taking another’s life. It is the ultimate sin.'

Is suicide really considered worse than murder by Thai Buddhists or the fusion of Asian religion that is practiced in Thailand? - Whats the Thai Buddhist stance of suicide?

BTW; It is not something I'm considering!! I need to find this out for a writing project.

Thanks.

[camerata]

Soi Dogs and Hungry Ghosts is probably not the best source for info on Buddhist ethics. I haven't heard of suicide being worse than murder in Thailand. A lot of people seem to think it breaks the first precept, which would make it equal to killing another. It certainly isn't "the ultimate sin." From the doctrinal standpoint, it isn't totally clear. See Harvey's Introduction to Buddhist Ethics.

[hansnl]

Soi Dogs and Hungry Ghosts is probably not the best source for info on Buddhist ethics. I haven't heard of suicide being worse than murder in Thailand. A lot of people seem to think it breaks the first precept, which would make it equal to killing another. It certainly isn't "the ultimate sin." From the doctrinal standpoint, it isn't totally clear. See Harvey's Introduction to Buddhist Ethics.

I don't think attitude to suicide is very much different in most other religions.

I know about the Jewish / Christian stance in this matter.

Don't really know what other religions feel about this point, although I have a general impression that suicide is mostly tabu.

Don't know and don't want to know what the islam thinks in general and about this point.

Edited October 6, 2009 by hansnl

[ChiangMaiFun]

Soi Dogs and Hungry Ghosts is probably not the best source for info on Buddhist ethics. I haven't heard of suicide being worse than murder in Thailand. A lot of people seem to think it breaks the first precept, which would make it equal to killing another. It certainly isn't "the ultimate sin." From the doctrinal standpoint, it isn't totally clear. See Harvey's Introduction to Buddhist Ethics.

I don't think attitude to suicide is very much different in most other religions.

I know about the Jewish / Christian stance in this matter.

Don't really know what other religions feel about this point, although I have a general impression that suicide is mostly tabu.

Don't know and don't want to know what the islam thinks in general and about this point.

Which raises the issue of euthanasia - is this considered suicide? or are there cases where it is permissable?

[bina]

euthenasia, even of animals is frowned upon. i dont think that a suicide of a budhist is treated the same as in judaism (dont know about christian stuff)... in judaism, u get buried outside the fence of the graveyard and i think also when the messiah supposedly arrives, i think the suicide doesnt join in the fun.

budhists, from what ive heard (in issann thailand i.e.), the body is treated differently, just like any other body that died from un natural causes or un known causes. the monks decide when and what is done to the body, any where from a few months to years after the death.

good question. will ask husband when he arrives from work. in general, ive noticed that thais really dont like to talk about suicide but its not usually laced with religious overtones but sort of aghastness (if thats a word).

bina

israel

[Svenn]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong as I've always been curious about this, but I thought I remember reading in some Theravada-related text somewhere that if a monk had no hope of progressing in his practice in extreme circumstances, he had a right to take his own life. I've certainly heard that in Zen, and I'm fairly certain it's not just the rhetorical motivations of the master when he says there's no point in living if you cannot attain satori. There is one story of a young monk who spent a few years at a monastery, and for whatever reason (I assume he had depression issues or something) decided to jump of a cliff because he had failed to progress on the path. It's stated that as soon as his feet left the ground, he must have attained his awakening. I think the Buddhist perspective is that although life should not be clung to as it is a mere 'burning house,' intentionally destroying it is a clinging (to death) as well.

[wester]

Simply put, it is a sure fire round trip ticket for a person who probably envies bugs and insects

[bankei]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong as I've always been curious about this, but I thought I remember reading in some Theravada-related text somewhere that if a monk had no hope of progressing in his practice in extreme circumstances, he had a right to take his own life. I've certainly heard that in Zen, and I'm fairly certain it's not just the rhetorical motivations of the master when he says there's no point in living if you cannot attain satori. There is one story of a young monk who spent a few years at a monastery, and for whatever reason (I assume he had depression issues or something) decided to jump of a cliff because he had failed to progress on the path. It's stated that as soon as his feet left the ground, he must have attained his awakening. I think the Buddhist perspective is that although life should not be clung to as it is a mere 'burning house,' intentionally destroying it is a clinging (to death) as well.

There is a sutta where the Buddha was staying with some monks, he then went away and the monks started killing themselves because they misinterpreted his teachings. Buddha came back and said it was wrong. Can't remember the name of the Sutta but Phra Kantipalo wrote an article on it in the Buddhist Studies Review.

There is also an interesting paper on Buddhism and Suicide By Damien Keown, "Buddhism and Suicide: The Case of Channa." in the Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 1996 - available online.

[LazyYogi]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong as I've always been curious about this, but I thought I remember reading in some Theravada-related text somewhere that if a monk had no hope of progressing in his practice in extreme circumstances, he had a right to take his own life. I've certainly heard that in Zen, and I'm fairly certain it's not just the rhetorical motivations of the master when he says there's no point in living if you cannot attain satori. There is one story of a young monk who spent a few years at a monastery, and for whatever reason (I assume he had depression issues or something) decided to jump of a cliff because he had failed to progress on the path. It's stated that as soon as his feet left the ground, he must have attained his awakening. I think the Buddhist perspective is that although life should not be clung to as it is a mere 'burning house,' intentionally destroying it is a clinging (to death) as well.

Suicide doesn't make any sense from a Theravada perspective because killing oneself is a non-virtuous action. So if you are having trouble progressing and then commit suicide, you just made your progress a million times more difficult as you'll probably be reborn in a lower realm. The only exception I recall from the suttas is for someone who is already an arhat, liberated from further re-birth, who would only do so if they were already very old or sick and feeble and were a burden for the community to support. No being is ever in a position where they have no hope of progressing. There is always some sort of meritorious activity you could preform with your remaining time on earth, even if it is just mental activity such as generating loving kindness or recollecting the outstanding qualities of the Buddha.

In Tibetan Buddhism suicide is seen as an extremely negative action, and the person who commits it is certain to spend a vast amount of time in the hel_l realms.

I have no idea how it came to be seen as an honorable act in the Zen-influenced samurai culture of Japan. It's really quite sad, especially when you look at how this wrong view affected so many in the age of modern warfare.

[sabaijai]

It would depend on the intention, ie whether the citta was kusala or akusala. I can't really think of an instance in which suicide could be kusala kamma. Seems like suicide would almost always be prompted by aversion (for this moment, this life), ignorance (kamma vipaka cannot be avoided) and greed (desire for a different rebirth).

Euthanasia, by definition, is not suicide.

[ChiangMaiFun]

It would depend on the intention, ie whether the citta was kusala or akusala. I can't really think of an instance in which suicide could be kusala kamma. Seems like suicide would almost always be prompted by aversion (for this moment, this life), ignorance (kamma vipaka cannot be avoided) and greed (desire for a different rebirth).

Euthanasia, by definition, is not suicide.

but what about someone with unbearable pain (cancer maybe) who 'assists' themselves either directly (with a gun for example) or with over presescription of drugs?

[bina]

euthenasia would be 'taking someone's life' i.e. murder?

bina

[sabaijai]

It would depend on the intention, ie whether the citta was kusala or akusala. I can't really think of an instance in which suicide could be kusala kamma. Seems like suicide would almost always be prompted by aversion (for this moment, this life), ignorance (kamma vipaka cannot be avoided) and greed (desire for a different rebirth).

Euthanasia, by definition, is not suicide.

but what about someone with unbearable pain (cancer maybe) who 'assists' themselves either directly (with a gun for example) or with over presescription of drugs?

That would be suicide, prompted by aversion and ignorance.

[ChiangMaiFun]

It would depend on the intention, ie whether the citta was kusala or akusala. I can't really think of an instance in which suicide could be kusala kamma. Seems like suicide would almost always be prompted by aversion (for this moment, this life), ignorance (kamma vipaka cannot be avoided) and greed (desire for a different rebirth).

Euthanasia, by definition, is not suicide.

but what about someone with unbearable pain (cancer maybe) who 'assists' themselves either directly (with a gun for example) or with over presescription of drugs?

That would be suicide, prompted by aversion and ignorance.

and... Doctor I'm in so much pain... and get's more drugs? (and dies). Most people do not die of their cancers but the drugs - is this murder by Doctors? what about someone who has infomation an enemy wants - and takes their own life to save others? is this suicide and wrong? you could say taking prescribed drugs to ease pain is illusional?

[Xangsamhua]

I don't know if Thai Buddhists have a single, orthodox doctrine on suicide. Judgement on it in any religion, I would think, is subject to many conditions and circumstances, e.g. the suicide's mental state at the time, the intention, etc. Ritually, the suicide's death may well be marked by withdrawal of certain rites and conventions, but its salvific implications may be seen as something we can't judge.

In discussing the self-immolation of some Vietnamese monks during the Vietnam War, Thich Nhat Hanh has said:

Suicide is an act of self-destruction, having as causes the following: (1) lack of courage to live and to cope with difficulties; (2) defeat by life and loss of all hope; (3) desire for nonexistence. The monk who burns himself has lost neither courage nor hope; nor does he desire nonexistence. On the contrary, he is very courageous and hopeful and aspires for something good in the future. He does not think that he is destroying himself; he believes in the good fruition of his act of self-sacrifice for the sake of others. I believe with all my heart that the monks who burned themselves did not aim at the death of their oppressors but only at a change in their policy. Their enemies are not man. They are intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship, cupidity, hatred, and discrimination which lie within the heart of man.

Further,

The Vietnamese monk, by burning himself, says with all his strength and determination that he can endure the greatest of sufferings to protect his people. To express will by burning oneself, therefore, is not to commit an act of destruction but to perform an act of construction, that is, to suffer and to die for the sake of one's people. This is not suicide.

http://www.thuvienhoasen.org/qd-tuongniem-23.htm

[phetaroi]

I believe with all my heart that the monks who burned themselves did not aim at the death of their oppressors but only at a change in their policy. Their enemies are not man. They are intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship, cupidity, hatred, and discrimination which lie within the heart of man.

Very interesting issue that I have wondered about myself.

I have a very difficult time believing that in the Vietnam situation that there was any likelihood at all that a monk setting himself on fire was going to lead to an improvement over "intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship, cupidity, hatred, and discrimination which lie within the heart of man." In fact, for me personally, it's an example of fanaticism that makes just about as much sense as Jim Jones.

On the other hand, I would posit that the politicization of monks in Burma made a change in government there significant more likely.

Edited January 6, 2010 by camerata
No need to quote the whole post.

[camerata]

Frankly, the entirety of Buddhist scripture is like the Bible: you can find a quote to justify just about anything in there. In Mahayana, and Zen in particular, there are texts and sutras that can be interpreted as justifying murder, suicide and holy war. In China, Zen absorbed a fair bit of Confucianism and ideas of self-sacrifice.

In the case of the self-immolating monks, everything depends on their intent, which we can never know. In theory it could have been anything from a desire to go down in the history books (although I doubt that!) to total selflessness. Since so many intentions originate deep in the subconscious, maybe they didn't know themselves.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Frankly, the entirety of Buddhist scripture is like the Bible: you can find a quote to justify just about anything in there. In Mahayana, and Zen in particular, there are texts and sutras that can be interpreted as justifying murder, suicide and holy war. In China, Zen absorbed a fair bit of Confucianism and ideas of self-sacrifice.

In the case of the self-immolating monks, everything depends on their intent, which we can never know. In theory it could have been anything from a desire to go down in the history books (although I doubt that!) to total selflessness. Since so many intentions originate deep in the subconscious, maybe they didn't know themselves.

Exactly why none of us should 'quote' that Buddha said this or that... or try to justify stuff.

As for the monks - isn't fairly clear that suicide (for political purposes - is considered by all sources wrong?) not sure how they would justify it

[sabaijai]

Such ethical questions can be readily answered without referring to scripture by examining the citta from which kamma springs. If unwholesome/unskilful, then the act is unwholesome/unskilful and will have corresponding fruit.

[camerata]

Exactly why none of us should 'quote' that Buddha said this or that... or try to justify stuff.

Well, I was very careful to say "the entirety of Buddhist scripture" because I think it's pretty safe to quote what Sakyamuni said in the core suttas and vinaya from the Pali Canon. But the various commentaries, Mahayana/Vajrayana sutras and treatises, plus the words of various monks through the ages are another matter.