user701: There was an incident in the 50s, a monk named Ñāṇavīra Thera commited suicide, he was believed to be a stream enterer and was suffering from amoebiasis.
So I'm curious to know, if someone knows for sure that he's become a stream enterer (or beyond) and doesn't desire to live anymore, can he decide to commit suicide? 

user295: This is partly speculation on the part of the editor of the collection of this letters. I have the Sinhala book my self. Hence we do not know what happened. Only we thing we know for sure is that the Ven. Sir was bitten by a poisonous spider. Anything other than this is speculative. So it is best not draw conclusion on speculative incidents.
Also suicide does not seam to be a valid option for a monk as it is a Parajika offence.
In addition this does not set a good example to society hence should not be done.
In case you just believe you are stream entry by mistake then you end in misery. Also your loved ones also end in misery. Hence one should not contemplate, set an example, or in the slightest sense promote this line of thinking

user12416: The level of buddhist fundamentalism present in this thread is disgusting. People really think that they have understood the workings of the unknown by reading about the specific experiences of a few people (aka gautama etc) and generalize a structure of awakening. This is laughably sad. Awakening is not a straightforward process nor does it ever happen in two people in the same way. There are exception to almost every map of enlightenment (of which the buddhist map is the absolute weakest and most erronous). Yes a stream enterer can commit suicide, ofcourse. It has happened before in more cases than one. No stream entry does not do what buddhists claim that it does. All that has happened is that the energy in the body has temporarily crossed the threshold of the third eye and touched the crown chakra and the person has temporarily had one of the MANY experiences of trancendance that are possible. And now, the higher energy starts opening up all the unlocked karmic energies in the system and dragging the practicioner through the dark night of the soul. But a small part of the awareness now rests in the higher realm/nibbana and that allows SOME manner of stillness and detachment to remain even as the process of karmic purging begins anew. If a person is a good 'buddhist', indoctrinated to not care about the world, they may feel that they are getting enlightened and not kill themselves and find some solace in the still realm. If on the other hand they really do care about some things in the world or their humanity, the small connection to the formless realm may not be enough to stop them from killing themself. It depends on where the person stands. Trying to use buddhist "if x then y" logic just because it was written in a stupid sutta will only lead you into falsehood. the universe works in far more varied ways than sattopatana or other suttas would have you believe. Look up shamanic death to get a different perspective on the process. Parts of the formless are blissfull and worthwhile while other parts are horrifying and life denying. Just goes to show you how lousy of a track record the fundamentalist buddhist schools have at actually enlightening people that most of them talk so freely and with such confidence about things that they actually have no experience of. 

written by a stream enterer


user-1: As i interpret the texts it is possible that an aryan can commit suicide.
There is a case where the Buddha says that one who does not take up another body is blameless if they were to use the knife.

Moreover, friend, for a long time the Teacher has been served by me in an agreeable way, not in a disagreeable way; for it is proper for a disciple to serve the Teacher in an agreeable way, not in a disagreeable way. Remember this, friend Sāriputta: the bhikkhu Channa will use the knife blamelessly.”
[ I edit out the part where Sariputta interrogates Ven. Channa ]
Then, when the Venerable Sāriputta and the Venerable Mahacunda had given the Venerable Channa this exhortation, they rose from their seats and departed. Then, soon after they had left, the Venerable Channa used the knife.
Then the Venerable Sāriputta approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him: “Venerable sir, the Venerable Channa has used the knife. What is his destination, what is his future bourn?”
“ Sāriputta, didn’t the bhikkhu Channa declare his blameless-ness right in your presence?”
“Venerable sir, there is a Vajjian village named Pubbavijjhana. There the Venerable Channa had friendly families, intimate families, hospitable families.”
“The Venerable Channa did indeed have these friendly families, Sāriputta, intimate families, hospitable families; but I do not say that to this extent one is blameworthy. Sāriputta, when one lays down this body and takes up another body, then I say one is blameworthy. This did not happen in the case of the bhikkhu Channa. The bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly. Thus, Sāriputta, should you remember it. ” SN35.87: Channa

In a Sarvastivadin text (Milinda Panha) which is considered to be a part of Theravadin canon we can see a similar pattern of speech where an Arahant answers a question but the questioneer not being satisfied with the answer repeats the question. In this case the Arahant answers in the same manner as Buddha does, as "didn't you already get an answer to this question?"
An example of this is where Milinda asks Nagasena repeatedly if he was going to be born again. Ven. Nagasena initially answers saying that he will take up another body if he were to have attachment and that he wouldn't if he were otherwise.  Milinda not being satisfied with the answer asks again to which Nagasena then answers akin to 'didn't i already answer your question?' and proceeds to give a simile of a man having been rewarded for his service saying that he had received nothing.
What we can infer from this Channasuttam, among other things, is that there is a case where one can lay down the body blamelessly, that is if one is an Arahant.
This is most important because of this line i  the suttapitaka

Five impossibles, to wit, for an Arahant intentionally to take life... DN33: Great Recital

If we superimpose this statement with there being a possibility to lay down the body blamelessly then it is clear that suicide is not the same as killing another being.
As to whether a Sotapanna can do it, there is nothing in the Canon to suggest that that they can't as far as i know.
There is a statement in the commentary to Dhammapada saying that "Sotapannas do not kill, they don't want others to get killed" but i already showed that this would not encompass suicide.
Therefore it follows that an arahant can do, ordinary person can do and as to the stream-enterer, the reasonable assumption is that it is possible, that it can happen because it has not been proclaimed to be a disqualification.
To claim otherwise would require evidence and there is none afaik.

user8157: It is unlikely the monk named Ñāṇavīra Thera was a stream-enterer because his notes on Dependent Origination are very confusing despite some of his ideas being valid (such as "my birth" & "my death" for jati-marana); however the valid ideas were based on sutta study. In other words, it appears his ideas about Dependent Origination came from study rather than from realisation because if there was genuine realisation he would have explained Dependent Origination correctly, which he did not.
As for suicide, yes, a stream-enterer can terminate life with a liberated mind if living becomes pointless & they do not crave another life; which appeared did not occur with Ñāṇavīra. It seems Ñāṇavīra craved for another life therefore his suicide was blameworthy (per MN 144). It seems Ñāṇavīra did not pass away with a void mind of sunnata but with the self-view of: "I am a stream-enterer & I have seven more lifetimes until I attain Nibbana". 
The realisation of a stream-enterer is explained very clearly in many suttas (SN 56.11; MN 56; etc), namely: "All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation". Ñāṇavīra appeared to not terminate life with this realization but, instead, with the contrary idea that: "I am a stream-enterer subject to re-arising".  

user832: I do not find any merit in discussing suicide because in my mind it is not on the path. It is a dead end street. It is like jumping off the train - you don't get to your destination.
If someone is a stream enterer, they might still get stuck in the folly of the human mind. Taking one's physical life is a sign that you take the personal self too seriously and that you are under the illusion it is something you must deal with and can deal with, and that it is something you may end.
The only way to end the suffering is to stop kowtowing to the personal self and open to the buddha awakening. In this awakening there is no birth, no life, no death. If this is awakening, should we be talking about suicide at all? I think not, unless someone is disturbed and contemplating that fateful error. It is seeds of karma to do harm to any sentient being including oneself. There is no excuse - one who chooses that destiny must deal with the seeds and outcome they choose by default.

user43: I am familiar with the story of Ñāṇavīra Thera, and while I deeply appreciate his work, esp. on 12 Nidanas, which for me is a good evidence that he indeed could have been a stream-enterer, I feel that his suicide was a very unfortunate outcome of the bad karma he created in the past. This karma, in its turn, came from a chain of negative mind states that evidently spanned multiple lives.
While, generally speaking, anyone can decide to commit suicide, a decision to do so is more likely to be made by someone who 1) is not afraid to die, 2) sees the pain associated with continuing to live, 3) has aversion to pain, and 4) does not see much value in continuing to live.
Because stream-enterer is beyond the illusion of self, s\he is not afraid of death. Because s\he clearly sees conditions that lead to arising of pain, s\he sees the pain associated with life. Because s\he is not yet beyond sukha-and-dukkha, s\he can still have aversion to pain. What remains is #4.
The value in continuing to live falls into two categories: the value for oneself and the value for others. Because stream-enterer is beyond the illusion of self, the only reason to carry on this particular life would be the value he or she thinks s\he could bring for others.
In Mahayana tradition, the first idea you learn, right after the basic concepts of Samsara, Nirvana, Enlightenment, and Karma -- is the high ideal of compassion. By this ideal, if I don't have a reason to live for myself, if I can alleviate suffering of even one dog, it is worth to continue living, let alone if I can help one human, let alone if I can help multiple people, let alone if I can teach Sat-Dharma.
So, while stream-entry refers to the same basic milestone that is known as First Bhumi in Mahayana, a Bodhisattva of First Bhumi would only choose to die if doing so would greatly benefit more people than he could benefit by e.g. teaching Dharma. For example, participating in the repair of Fukushima nuclear station could be a great way to die for someone who has no reason to live but does not have an aptitude to teach Dharma. There are many other ways to help humanity and die a hero whose name will be on a monument, instead of becoming a topic of regret that no one wants to mention.

701: <p>There was an incident in the 50s, a monk named <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanavira_Thera" rel="noreferrer">Ñāṇavīra Thera</a> commited suicide, he was believed to be a stream enterer and was suffering from amoebiasis.</p>

<p>So I'm curious to know, if someone knows for sure that he's become a stream enterer (or beyond) and doesn't desire to live anymore, can he decide to commit suicide? </p>
 295: <p>This is partly speculation on the part of the editor of the collection of this letters. I have the Sinhala book my self. Hence we do not know what happened. Only we thing we know for sure is that the Ven. Sir was bitten by a poisonous spider. Anything other than this is speculative. So it is best not draw conclusion on speculative incidents.</p>

<p>Also suicide does not seam to be a valid option for a monk as it is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patimokkha_in_Theravada_Buddhism" rel="nofollow">Parajika offence</a>.</p>

<p>In addition this does not set a good example to society hence should not be done.</p>

<p>In case you just believe you are stream entry by mistake then you end in misery. Also your loved ones also end in misery. Hence one should not contemplate, set an example, or in the slightest sense promote this line of thinking</p>
 12416: <p>The level of buddhist fundamentalism present in this thread is disgusting. People really think that they have understood the workings of the unknown by reading about the specific experiences of a few people (aka gautama etc) and generalize a structure of awakening. This is laughably sad. Awakening is not a straightforward process nor does it ever happen in two people in the same way. There are exception to almost every map of enlightenment (of which the buddhist map is the absolute weakest and most erronous). Yes a stream enterer can commit suicide, ofcourse. It has happened before in more cases than one. No stream entry does not do what buddhists claim that it does. All that has happened is that the energy in the body has temporarily crossed the threshold of the third eye and touched the crown chakra and the person has temporarily had one of the MANY experiences of trancendance that are possible. And now, the higher energy starts opening up all the unlocked karmic energies in the system and dragging the practicioner through the dark night of the soul. But a small part of the awareness now rests in the higher realm/nibbana and that allows SOME manner of stillness and detachment to remain even as the process of karmic purging begins anew. If a person is a good 'buddhist', indoctrinated to not care about the world, they may feel that they are getting enlightened and not kill themselves and find some solace in the still realm. If on the other hand they really do care about some things in the world or their humanity, the small connection to the formless realm may not be enough to stop them from killing themself. It depends on where the person stands. Trying to use buddhist "if x then y" logic just because it was written in a stupid sutta will only lead you into falsehood. the universe works in far more varied ways than sattopatana or other suttas would have you believe. Look up shamanic death to get a different perspective on the process. Parts of the formless are blissfull and worthwhile while other parts are horrifying and life denying. Just goes to show you how lousy of a track record the fundamentalist buddhist schools have at actually enlightening people that most of them talk so freely and with such confidence about things that they actually have no experience of. </p>

<ul>
<li>written by a stream enterer</li>
</ul>
 -1: <p>As i interpret the texts it is possible that an aryan can commit suicide.</p>
<p>There is a case where the Buddha says that one who does not take up another body is blameless if they were to use the knife.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Moreover, friend, for a long time the Teacher has been served by me in an agreeable way, not in a disagreeable way; for it is proper for a disciple to serve the Teacher in an agreeable way, not in a disagreeable way. <strong>Remember this, friend Sāriputta: the bhikkhu Channa will use the knife blamelessly.”</strong></p>
<p>[ <em>I edit out the part where Sariputta interrogates Ven. Channa</em> ]</p>
<p>Then, when the Venerable Sāriputta and the Venerable Mahacunda had given the Venerable Channa this exhortation, they rose from their seats and departed. <strong>Then, soon after they had left, the Venerable Channa used the knife.</strong></p>
<p>Then the Venerable Sāriputta approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him: “Venerable sir, the Venerable Channa has used the knife. What is his destination, what is his future bourn?”</p>
<p>“ <strong>Sāriputta, didn’t the bhikkhu Channa declare his blameless-ness right in your presence?”</strong></p>
<p>“Venerable sir, there is a Vajjian village named Pubbavijjhana. There the Venerable Channa had friendly families, intimate families, hospitable families.”</p>
<p>“The Venerable Channa did indeed have these friendly families, Sāriputta, intimate families, hospitable families; but I do not say that to this extent one is blameworthy. Sāriputta, when one lays down this body and takes up another body, then I say one is blameworthy. This did not happen in the case of the bhikkhu Channa. <strong>The bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly. Thus, Sāriputta, should you remember it.</strong> ” <a href="https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/sn35.87" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN35.87: Channa</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In a Sarvastivadin text (Milinda Panha) which is considered to be a part of Theravadin canon we can see a similar pattern of speech where an Arahant answers a question but the questioneer not being satisfied with the answer repeats the question. In this case the Arahant answers in the same manner as Buddha does, as &quot;didn't you already get an answer to this question?&quot;</p>
<p>An example of this is where Milinda asks Nagasena repeatedly if he was going to be born again. Ven. Nagasena initially answers saying that he will take up another body if he were to have attachment and that he wouldn't if he were otherwise.  Milinda not being satisfied with the answer asks again to which Nagasena then answers akin to 'didn't i already answer your question?' and proceeds to give a simile of a man having been rewarded for his service saying that he had received nothing.</p>
<p>What we can infer from this Channasuttam, among other things, is that there is a case where one can lay down the body blamelessly, that is if one is an Arahant.</p>
<p>This is most important because of this line i  the suttapitaka</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Five impossibles, to wit, for an Arahant intentionally to take life... <a href="https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/dn33" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN33: Great Recital</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>If we superimpose this statement with there being a possibility to lay down the body blamelessly then it is clear that suicide is not the same as killing another being.</p>
<p>As to whether a Sotapanna can do it, there is nothing in the Canon to suggest that that they can't as far as i know.</p>
<p>There is a statement in the commentary to Dhammapada saying that &quot;Sotapannas do not kill, they don't want others to get killed&quot; but i already showed that this would not encompass suicide.</p>
<p>Therefore it follows that an arahant can do, ordinary person can do and as to the stream-enterer, the reasonable assumption is that it is possible, that it can happen because it has not been proclaimed to be a disqualification.</p>
<p>To claim otherwise would require evidence and there is none afaik.</p>
 8157: <p>It is unlikely the monk named Ñāṇavīra Thera was a stream-enterer because his notes on Dependent Origination are very confusing despite some of his ideas being valid (such as "my birth" &amp; "my death" for jati-marana); however the valid ideas were based on sutta study. In other words, it appears his ideas about Dependent Origination came from study rather than from realisation because if there was genuine realisation he would have explained Dependent Origination correctly, which he did not.</p>

<p>As for suicide, yes, a stream-enterer can terminate life with a liberated mind if living becomes pointless &amp; they do not crave another life; which appeared did not occur with Ñāṇavīra. It seems Ñāṇavīra craved for another life therefore his suicide was blameworthy (per MN 144). It seems Ñāṇavīra did not pass away with a void mind of <em>sunnata</em> but with the self-view of: "<strong><em>I am</strong> a stream-enterer &amp; <strong>I</strong> have seven more lifetimes until <strong>I</strong> attain Nibbana</em>". </p>

<p>The realisation of a stream-enterer is explained very clearly in many suttas (SN 56.11; MN 56; etc), namely: "<em>All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation</em>". Ñāṇavīra appeared to not terminate life with this realization but, instead, with the contrary idea that: "<em>I am a stream-enterer subject to re-arising</em>".  </p>
 832: <p>I do not find any merit in discussing suicide because in my mind it is not on the path. It is a dead end street. It is like jumping off the train - you don't get to your destination.
If someone is a stream enterer, they might still get stuck in the folly of the human mind. Taking one's physical life is a sign that you take the personal self too seriously and that you are under the illusion it is something you must deal with and can deal with, and that it is something you may end.
The only way to end the suffering is to stop kowtowing to the personal self and open to the buddha awakening. In this awakening there is no birth, no life, no death. If this is awakening, should we be talking about suicide at all? I think not, unless someone is disturbed and contemplating that fateful error. It is seeds of karma to do harm to any sentient being including oneself. There is no excuse - one who chooses that destiny must deal with the seeds and outcome they choose by default.</p>
 43: <p>I am familiar with the story of Ñāṇavīra Thera, and while I deeply appreciate his work, esp. on 12 Nidanas, which for me is a good evidence that he indeed could have been a stream-enterer, I feel that his suicide was a very unfortunate outcome of the bad karma he created in the past. This karma, in its turn, came from a chain of negative mind states that evidently spanned multiple lives.</p>

<p>While, generally speaking, anyone can decide to commit suicide, a decision to do so is more likely to be made by someone who 1) is not afraid to die, 2) sees the pain associated with continuing to live, 3) has aversion to pain, and 4) does not see much value in continuing to live.</p>

<p>Because stream-enterer is beyond the illusion of self, s\he is not afraid of death. Because s\he clearly sees conditions that lead to arising of pain, s\he sees the pain associated with life. Because s\he is not yet beyond sukha-and-dukkha, s\he can still have aversion to pain. What remains is #4.</p>

<p>The value in continuing to live falls into two categories: the value for oneself and the value for others. Because stream-enterer is beyond the illusion of self, the only reason to carry on this particular life would be the value he or she thinks s\he could bring for others.</p>

<p>In Mahayana tradition, the first idea you learn, right after the basic concepts of Samsara, Nirvana, Enlightenment, and Karma -- is the high ideal of compassion. By this ideal, if I don't have a reason to live for myself, if I can alleviate suffering of even one dog, it is worth to continue living, let alone if I can help one human, let alone if I can help multiple people, let alone if I can teach Sat-Dharma.</p>

<p>So, while stream-entry refers to the same basic milestone that is known as First Bhumi in Mahayana, a Bodhisattva of First Bhumi would only choose to die if doing so would greatly benefit more people than he could benefit by e.g. teaching Dharma. For example, participating in the repair of Fukushima nuclear station could be a great way to die for someone who has no reason to live but does not have an aptitude to teach Dharma. There are many other ways to help humanity and die a hero whose name will be on a monument, instead of becoming a topic of regret that no one wants to mention.</p>
