Element wrote:Dear forum
There are a number of suttas in cannon, such as the
Channovada Sutta, where a monk ends their life by their own hand due to terminal illness and extreme pain.
On these occassions, the Buddha declared (after certain monks would try to attribute blame): "When one lays down this body and takes up a new body, then I say one is blameworthy. This did not happen in the case of the bhikkhu. The bhikkhu used the knife blamelessly".
Today, I listened to the painful account of how my friend's partner died. Legal contracts were signed allowing the doctor and nurse to withhold fluids and other things, if requested, so death could occur faster. There was so much pain, many times my friend would plead with the nurse: "Can't you just give him an overdose and finish it!" Her partner would awaken from the morphene stupor, requesting fluids, contrary to his contractual requests. It appears my friend's partner's mind was (naturally) still fighting for life.
In listening to the account, I recalled the suttas and reflected upon how it would be to use the knife blamelessly.
What do we think the Buddha meant when saying: "The bhikkhu used the knife blamelessly".
I have read nothing which the Buddha has said which promotes the concept of 'blame'. Neither have I seen any teaching on karma which allows for emotive 'blame'. 'Responsibility' may be closer.
He may be describing how a Bhikkhu SHOULD behave, rather than generalising.
To end a life in order to end suffering, without any personal involvement would seem blameless - as a pet owner asking a vet to end the suffering of a pet. However, if the life is taken because one cannot bear to see the animal suffer, that would seem wrong, as it is 'self cherishing'.
The monk who takes his own life to end the suffering of his body can do so 'blamelessly' as long as he does so without attachment to that body. If he thinks: 'I must end MY suffering' it would seem wrong, as again it is 'self' centred.
A monk may, however, cognise that there is a body within which there is suffering which should be ended, and the only way to do so is to end life. The 'intention' becomes the critical element in the decision. However, ending life for any reason may create bad karma - I have no idea how that would weigh in the balance against allowing suffering to continue.
The Bhikkhu, it would seem, would also not have any motivation to gain a new or better lifefor him'self', but would have a pure motivation to escape samsara. Hence his action would be positive rather than negative. This is conjecture on my part, as it assumes the Bhikkhu's motivation matches what the Buddha describes.
