Death( in Buddhism)

A stage of life leading to the final cessation of all the vital organs. It is an event that terminates life.

Buddhist Concept of Death

In the traditional texts of Indian philosophy as, for example, in the Bhagavadgītā the soul is regarded to be eternal, and so birth has been conceived as the soul’s putting on a new body and death as the soul’s departing the old body. Since the Buddhists do not admit any permanent soul, they offer a new interpretation of birth and death. For them birth is the production, the outcome, the rising up of a new form of mental and physical qualities which in combination constitute the individual. If birth is the combination of the five elements, death is the dissolution or breaking down of this combination. Though in the Buddhist framework like all other existence this combination of the five constituents is regarded as transitory, an ordinary human being does not have any experience regarding this transitoriness. On the contrary it is perceived to be permanent. So the passing away of the individual, the thought of the dissolution of the five elements bring pain and as such man is afraid of death. Death in the Buddhist text, Dhammapada, has often been compared with flood that carries off villages without giving any hint, for death also sweeps off the man engaged in gathering the flowers, objects of worldly enjoyment.

Death is conceived to be the end of life or of an existence. More exactly, death is the dissolution of the organism constituted at birth to experience the fruits of a certain set of actions. This organism, both material and mental, does not contain any single stable underlying principle. Like the flame of a burning oil-lamp it continues to renew itself moment by moment. Viewed thus, there is “an incessant death” undergoing in the individual every moment. However, he is not at all aware of this process of death going on within him every moment. He thinks that death is the final state when the body will no longer be there. In spite of speaking of death as a continuous process, always going on within man, the Buddhists also believe that death is the end of this homogeneous renewing – it is the separation of the elements (skandha), both the physical elements (rūpakāya) as well as the elements of consciousness (vijñāna).

In the later works of the Abhidharma philosophy, a more elaborate idea of death can be found. It is stated there that from the origin of existence there is a thought which gives rise to the formation of a new being in the matrix (pratisandhi) and this thought is known as bhavāṇga or as bhavāṇgasantati (existence limb series) which is the limb of existence. This bhavāṇga evolves into an uninterrupted, relatively homogeneous series of mental states like the flow of a river. Thus, this bhavāṇga may be viewed as the foundation of a soul, the support and origin of particular thoughts which interrupt it. At the end of life, this thought dissolves and transforms itself into a thought in the dying state. Existence in the series of existences ends up with the disappearance of bhavāṇga. It has been said that at the stage of death a new existence occurs in a new status because the thought in the stage of death is reflected in the “thought in a state of being born.” On such a view, death is the transformation of the bhavāṇga (“limb of existence”) into cyuticitta (emerging thought).

Another conception is prevalent among the Buddhists regarding death, according to which death is the end of a particular organ – the jīvitendriya, the vital sense. Life is actually the activity of the organs; the persistence, subsistence, and going on of the bodily and mental functions or states actually presupposes “a vital organ” supporting the living complex just as the water supports the water lily. This notion of “vital organ” comes closer to the notion of “the principal breath” (mukhya-prāṇa) admitted by the Vedāntic school of Indian Philosophy. Death, then, stands for the interruption of the series of the vital organ corresponding to a given existence. Regarding the nature of this “vital organ” or jīvitendriya the different schools of Buddhism are not unanimous. In some text it has been regarded as the eighteenth term of the rūpakhaṇda. In the Dhammasaṃgāni it has been described successively as mental and as material. The Abhidharmakośa described it as immaterial having no connection with thought (arūpa cittaviprayuktaḥ). Such jīvitendriya is nothing but the result of one’s past actions. In the Abhidharmakośavyākhyā life has been stated to be connected with the senses – the body lives so long as it is endowed with the senses. Life thus belongs to the body having the senses and not to the soul. If life is believed to be connected with the body, death will be the body robbed of the senses. By “senses” is sometimes meant the organs of sense which depend on the jīvitendriya, sometimes the jīvitendriya identified with the kāyendriya (the body-sense). The working and persistence of consciousness depends on the kāyendriya which at the time is to take place.

Instead of using the terms jīvita or jīvitendriya sometimes such terms as āyus meaning “life” and uşman meaning heat standing for “life” are used. The reason behind such use is that the workability of the five senses is grounded on life and the proof of life is heat or reversely heat is there in the body so long as it is alive. Life and heat more or less denote the same state of affair. In the ancient Nikāya text Samyuttanikāya, consciousness has been stated to be associated with āyus and uşman. With such a usage death will be regarded as the disappearance of heat. Those who associate consciousness with āyus regard death as the destruction of the viññāna, of the organ and also of life. In the Dīghanikāya in course of describing the last days of Lord Buddha it has been commented “the Blessed One rejected the āyusankhārā” – “the rest of his allotted sum of life.” In other Buddhist texts like Divyāvadāna or Mahāvyutpatti, the last stage of the life of Lord Buddha has been described as entering into such concentration of thought as to control his vitality-virtues and rejecting the life-virtualities.

Though ideologically the Buddhist philosophers admit the doctrine of rebirth for the common man, death is nothing but the termination of life. In spite of the fact that death is inevitable, ordinary people are afraid of death because there is no case of the returning back of the deceased. Lord Buddha in his several dialogues had tried to show that there is nothing to be afraid of death. Death has become a frightening inevitability because it is the negation of the “will to live.” Out of his craving for existence man always wants to live – he fights to live now and yearns to live in future, even if the future be no better than the present one. Lord Buddha tried to put a strike at the fundamental craze of human mind. In his different teachings he pointed out that all this is due to ignorance. So, if this ignorance can be replaced by wisdom, man will be able to realize the worldly phenomena as they really are – empty and substanceless. Such a wisdom will sweep away all the cravings and will lead to the path of perfection. Once man is able to set himself on that path, each successive life will be considered as leading him nearer to that goal. For such a person death will lose all its terrors. Death will be simply a doorway to a new life better equipped for the task ahead. The physical body being impermanent finally wears out. Even Lord Buddha, in spite of his attaining nirvāṇa, could not avoid old age and the ills that beset the flesh nor could he avoid the final dissolution of the physical body. So, all human beings seeking the attainment of nirvana, have to go through the process of laying aside the empty worn shell and passing through the door of death to regain youth and vigor so that they can continue their progress on the path sustained by the wisdom gained in their present life. Thus, for the Buddhists, the present life is given to eliminate the fetters and hindrances created by our past lives. Death is the gateway to further opportunities toward the attainment of Perfection or nirvāṇa. Viewed thus, there is nothing to be afraid of death – rather it has to be welcomed.

Any discussion on the topic of death and dying remain incomplete unless it includes discussion on suicide. Suicide has been defined as “a self-initiated intentional act directed toward, and resulting in, the ending of one’s own life.” Obviously any religion or religious system which puts much value on nonviolence, or not exhibiting any form of violence to others, cannot justify suicide. The Buddhists are also no exceptions in this regard. The core idea of Buddhist moral philosophy, as is reflected in their first precept – “to do no injury to anyone, but to live full of love and kindness in the world” – indicates that noninjury is the distinguishing mark of dhamma. Accordingly for such a system, it is most expected that suicide should be considered as a heinous act. But reading through the lines of the different Buddhist texts reveal some novel idea which may go against the long-accepted belief.

The attitude of the Buddhists, in general, is that suicide is wrong. Whether one kills someone else or kills oneself, it is still taking life. Besides, wanting not to exist any longer is a delusion. It is a form of attachment that, destructive though it is, nonetheless binds one to saṃsāra, the circle of suffering existence. When someone commits suicide, all he does is change to another state, and not necessarily a better state either. Out of such a belief the Indian Buddhists abstain from committing suicide or self-sacrifice.

In the Buddhist moral philosophy, an action is judged to be right or wrong not by itself but by its motivation and result. That action which has as its basis in the kuśala-mūla, the good dispositions, and whose consequence can be enjoyed with cheers is regarded as a good one. On the other hand, that action which is due to akuśala-mūla, the wrong dispositions, and whose consequence/results are to be borne with a heavy heart and tears in eyes is regarded as a bad one. Seen from this perspective, suicide is negative, because it is a failure in one’s attempt of saving life. By committing suicide, one destroys the possibility that one has, in this life of realizing the potential for transformation that one has within oneself. One succumbs to an intense attack of discouragement which is a weakness, a sort of drawback in one’s character. Suicide brings nothing good to the individual nor contributes anything to the welfare of the community at large – it only shifts the problem of this life to another state of existence.

Further, suicide, by its nature, is opposed to the Buddhist first precept, though discussion on the first precept hardly makes any mention of suicide. In a text entitled Mahāprajñāparamitāśāstra, Nāgārjuna, however, has shown that suicide is completely different from what is stated in the first precept. The first precept is basically regarding other individuals. Virtue (puṇya) and vice (pāpa) generate only in the context of wrong done to others. Such fruitfulness or misdeed does not originate in the case when one is not caring for his own body or when one kills oneself. As such, suicide is not a fault of killing a living being but is done only under delusion, attachment, and hatred. Thus this text tries to show that there is no contradiction in admitting the first precept and committing suicide.

Leaving aside the issue as to whether suicide really goes against the first precept or not, it can be said that self-murdering in any form cannot be regarded as justified from the Buddhist point of view. In the Vinaya text while explaining the rules to be followed by the monks (Bhikkhus) it has been categorically said that if any bhikkhu utters words praising death or incite another to self-destruction, he too is fallen into defeat, he is no longer eligible to stay in the Buddhist community. This instruction clearly indicates that according to the Buddhist morale inciting someone to self-destruction amounts to permanent expulsion from the community (samgha) since it is considered to be a “defeat” (pārājika) in the monastic life and is considered to be equally wrong as that of murdering someone. In the Milindapañhā, Nāgasena has referred to as the saying of Lord Buddha the following words – “A brother is not, O Bhikkus to commit suicide. Whosoever does so shall be dealt with according to the Law.”

This negative attitude of the Buddhists toward suicide also seems to follow from their admission of the Law of Karma. According to this law, the present life of any individual is the result of the actions done in the past lives. So, it is not justified that by committing suicide the individual can avoid the sufferings of this present life which bears the fruits of his former evil deeds; similarly he cannot enjoy the rewards of his good deeds by a voluntary untimely death. Everyone has to live his allotted span of life. In the Dīgha Nikāya this has been explained with the simile of a pregnant woman who being very curious about the sex of her unborn child, cuts her belly and dies. Thus did she destroy both her own life and that of her unborn infant, and her wealth also, through the foolish and thoughtless way in which, seeking a heritage, she met with ruin and disaster. In a similar manner, anyone committing suicide will be regarded as foolish and thoughtless and will meet with ruin and disaster by seeking without wisdom for another world.

Not only for enjoying the rewards of the past deeds is it prohibited to commit suicide, it is prohibited also for religious motives. The Buddhists object to the thirst for nonexistence (vibhavatṛṣṇā) equally as to the thirst for existence (bhavatṛṣṇā). A monk must abide in indifference without caring life, without caring for death. He is not permitted to commit suicide so as to reach nirvāṇa sooner. For in that case he still possesses some desire (desire for nirvāṇa), some disgust (disgust for life) which are considered to be hindrance to the path of liberation. In his dialogues with King Milinda, Nāgasena has said that no one needs to carry favor nor to bear malice. One should not shake down the unripe fruit but awaits the full time for its maturity.

Unlike other ascetic thinkers, the Buddhists do not recommend any austerity which is likely to weaken the body. The Jains and many other thinkers find in asceticism and physical pains the force to bring in purification from sin. While vocal sins can be got rid of through keeping silence and mental sins through respiratory restrains, bodily sins can be eliminated through starvation. Suicide by starvation is considered to be the ascetic act par excellence. Such an ascetic prescription is not admissible in the Buddhist framework. Lord Buddha believed that the bodily sin and lust can be terminated only by the realization of the impermanence of pleasure and non-substantiality of the Ego. Thus Lord Buddha replaced the ascetic practice by the realization of impermanence and momentary characters of all things in the world.

From what has been said so far, it seems to follow that in Buddhist system:

1. 1.
   Suicide is not recommended as an ascetic act leading to spiritual progress and nirvāņa
    
2. 2.
   No monk or arhat is recommended to kill himself
    

But a number of stories and passages found in different Buddhist texts lead to the revision of these conclusions. They indicate that in certain cases suicide may be the actual cause or the occasion for the attainment of liberation, although in other cases it may be premature and sinful. And arhats are sometimes found to commit suicide. In reply to the dilemma raised by King Milinda, namely, that Buddha has advised the monks not to commit suicide, and again has recommended to put an end to birth, old age, disease and death, Nāgasena clarified that in a certain sense Lord Buddha instigated mankind to put an end to life.

The starting point of the teaching of Lord Buddha is the existence of suffering. Birth is full of pain, and so are old age, disease, and death. Sorrow is painful and similarly are lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. Association with the unpleasant is painful and so is separation from the pleasant. Not only these, but also death of one’s near and dear ones, ruin of one’s family, suffering of disease, loss of wealth, loss of insight are painful. Similarly, objects of nature like earthquake, flood, etc., and mental agonies like fear, bodily pains caused by punishment, etc., all lead to some form of pain or other. In other words, the whole existence of human being in this world as also in different rebirths is associated with several kinds of pain – each being is “caught in succession of births and rebirths to endure such manifold and various pains.” Since the succession of rebirths is full of pain, the only alternative to get rid of this suffering is to stop this succession. The basic objective of Lord Buddha was to put an end to this succession of rebirths and consequently to different kinds of suffering. If it is the case that the individual has attained such a state that he does not have any regard for life, no desire for life, and has been able to remove thirst and the root of this thirst, namely, ignorance, he is allowed to kill himself. In the Kathāvatthu there is the story of Godhika who being unable to remain in a certain state of meditation because of disease, thought of killing himself by cutting his own throat with a sword. Māra then approached Buddha, informing him about Godhika’s thought and asked Buddha to prevent him from so doing. There Buddha justified such an act by saying “those who take the sword are without regard for life; they achieve insight (vipassanā) and reach nirvāṇa.” This story of Godhika indicates that in the Buddhist framework, if a person has been able to remove ignorance and consequently the different varieties of desire including the desire of life, which in fact is the cause of bondage, but is unable to reach the final stage of nirvāṇa because of his association with the body, he is allowed to give up his body.

The stories of the attempted suicide of Sīha, Sappadāsa, and Vakkali, as stated in the Therīgāthā and Theragāthā, indicate that suicide in their cases were the actual cause or the occasion for their attainment of arhatship. So in their cases committing suicide has not been condemned but justified. Sīha was distressed at not obtaining spiritual progress after 7 years of endeavor. She was thinking of what to do with this wretched life (pāpajīvita) and so decided to die through hanging. Just as the rope was tied round her neck, she was turning her thought toward enlightenment (vipassanā). She attained arhatship and at that very moment the rope loosened from her neck and fell. Similar is the story of Sappadāsa. This monk was overpowered by passion (kleśa) and never attained concentration (Samādhi). This distressed him so much that he was about to commit suicide with a sharp instrument. At that time suddenly he realized that inward vision. Another monk, Vakkali, was fond of looking at Buddha and attached excessive importance to the physical body of his Master. Such importance was an obstacle to his spiritual advancement. In order to remove this attachment of Vakkali, the Buddha ordered him to go. Desperate at being no longer able to see his Master, Vakkali decided to commit suicide by throwing himself down from a hilltop. At such a moment, the Master appeared before him and told him that his death will be a holy, auspicious one (apāpika) and will lead to the attainment of the highest stage of nirvāṇa.

These stories show that the nirvāṇa of the great saints like Vakkali, Godhika, Sīha, Sappadāsa was not previously attained by them because they did not possess the power of loosening the saṃskāras of their life. But the moment they were able to remove such saṃskāra by thinking of giving up life, they could reach the final stage. All these show that “a Buddha, when he has done what he had to do” is duly authorized to enter into the final rest. The case of an arhat is not different, the arhat also has achieved what he had to achieve – that is, he has removed the slightest kind of desire. If he is not, like a Buddha, capable of abandoning life in a quiet way, there is no reason why he should not have recourse to more drastic methods.

In the Mahāyāna text Saddharmapundarīka a passage is found which regards self-sacrifice to be the best form of worship. “Sacrificing one’s own body, young man of good family, is the most distinguished, the chiefest, the very best, the most sublime worship of the law.” Abandoning one’s existence (ātmanas tyāgah) is to be looked upon as the best form of sacrifice, to give one’s body is better than to give alms. Since one’s own body is the dearest of all things to oneself, to sacrifice it is the best abandonment (tyāgah) – to burn one’s body is better as an offering is, therefore, more meritorious than to kindle 1000 lamps at a shrine. In the stories of Buddha’s previous births (Jātakamālā) the future Śākyamuṇin, offered his own body to appease the hunger of a starving tigress. The Saddharmapundarīka mentions the legend of Bhaiṣajyarāja, who was not at all satisfied with his previous worship which was painful and extravagant, and as such he filled his body with all sorts of oil and set it on fire. In this way it is told that the bodhisattvas of the past had practiced many heroic deeds which made them advance toward the attainment of nirvāṇa.

It follows therefore that the general principle of Indian Buddhism was to abstain from killing or torturing any living being including oneself; the theologians of this system were strongly involved in the practice of self-killing. In the Śikṣāsamuccaya, a disciple, beginner, has been recommended to follow the heroic deeds of the bodhisattvas in their past lives. The beginner has to be ready, willing, and resolved to commit self-destruction with the objective of realizing the highest ideal. This sort of self-killing is the highest goal of nirvāṇa. It should, however, be borne in mind that though the Buddhists allow or recommend what may be described as “religious suicide,” they allow it only in those cases where there is no other means of attaining that universal welfare. If, any other route is open, such form of self-destruction will not be allowed. To be very brief, the Buddhists view regarding suicide is that if suicide is committed out of some dissatisfaction regarding mundane affairs such as not getting the desired object, etc., suicide is a very heinous act and leads one to hell, but if suicide is committed by a monk who has made much progress in the spiritual realization but is not able to attain nirvāṇa because of the hindrance created by the body, he is allowed to get rid of it.

Death, these days, gives rise to another important question, namely, that of euthanasia. Derived from the two Greek words eu and thanatos, euthanasia literally means “a good death.” As defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary the term stands for “gentle and easy death; bringing about of this, especially in case of incurable and painful disease.” The term normally comes to stand for such cases of dying where death is the intended result of some kind of action or inaction, thus giving rise to the notions of active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is intentionally hastening toward death by a deliberate positive act, such as pushing a lethal injection. Passive euthanasia is intentionally hastening toward death by some deliberate passive act such as by withdrawing medical treatment or withdrawing food which could have prolonged illness and thereby delay death. Sometimes a distinction is drawn between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is that which is carried out against the wishes of the patient. This involuntary euthanasia may be regarded the same as murder. Voluntary euthanasia, on the other hand, is that in which the patient requests the doctors to take some measure which will help to bring an early end to his life. This variety of euthanasia may be regarded as assisted suicide. Often a distinction is drawn between two other varieties of euthanasia – pre-voluntary and nonvoluntary ones. In the pre-voluntary euthanasia, the patient beforehand makes a will to the effect that if he or she becomes mentally incapable in future then, under such and such medical conditions, he or she likes to terminate life. The medical conditions referred to are such where the patient is in deep coma but his or her heart is kept active with the help of medical aids like artificial ventilator, etc. In the nonvoluntary euthanasia, the patient being in deep coma or in a stage of serious disease like Alzheimer, etc., is not able to suggest the termination of his or her life and there the decision to end his or her life is to be taken by the doctors in consultation with the relatives and with permission of the court. Active euthanasia is generally condemned by all and is also resisted by medical practitioners, though some are willing to apply passive euthanasia to some cases. Moral philosophers are involved in disputes as to whether euthanasia is justifiable at all.

In connection with suicide it has been noted that according to the Buddhist view the monks and the nuns are prohibited strictly to provoke a person to commit suicide/self-destruction either by praising or aiding the act of suicide. This prohibition gives the hint as to what the Buddhist view would be regarding euthanasia. Euthanasia, whether active or passive, is nothing but causing or hastening the death of the person. It amounts to the same thing as deliberately killing a person, even though such killing may have been requested upon by the person himself. Such an act obviously goes against the Buddhist first precept of not to “kill a living being,” not to cause “a living being to be killed,” and “not to approve of the killing of a living being,” since to keep with the request to kill the person amounts “to cause a living being to be killed.” The same holds true even if the request had been made in the form of “a living will.” The doctor who carries out or executes the request will then be accused of the same charge as killing/murdering the person, for it is quite possible that the person who previously made the request, at the time of execution of the will, may have changed his mind.

In the case of the person who is suffering from intense pain and when there is no chance of recovery as in the case of brain death, it seems that voluntary euthanasia is morally recommendable as it may be considered to be a case of mercy killing. But the Buddhists would not support such a justification. From several episodes stated in the Vinaya, it seems to be clear that the Buddhists do not look upon such cases as mercy killing, rather the monks involved in such cases are regarded as guilty of act entailing defeat in the monastic life. The first case stated there is where the monks “out of compassion” praise before a sick monk the beauty of death so that the latter adopt some unpleasant means and die. The second case is that of a condemned man. A monk then asks the executioner to kill himself so that his pain is not prolonged and he does not need to wait for his death for a long period. The third case is of a man whose hands and feet have been cut off. A monk then asks his relatives looking after him whether they want to reduce his pain, and when his relatives agree, the monk prescribes buttermilk for the man, and taking the buttermilk the man dies. All these three cases may be looked upon as mercy killing for in each case the monks did not have any bad intention – they were upset by the pain of the ailing person and wanted to reduce their pain. So they prescribed different means. In other words, they did not have any bad motive, rather they had compassion. Still in all these cases, the Bhikkhus were guilty of committing paccitiya kamma (explanatory acts). To justify this position of the Buddhists, Keown has drawn a fundamental distinction between motive and intention. Motive refers to the ultimate aim of an action while intention refers to the immediate goal of the action. For the Buddhists, life is the ultimate value, the highest end, and such a motive cannot be sacrificed for any other value like that of compassion of friendship. To have compassion as motive and to intend death in the process is not justifiable in the Buddhist framework. So, although in the above cases the motive of the monks was something good, namely, compassion or reducing the pain of another, the intention or the immediate goal was something wrong, namely, inviting death. Hence the monks were regarded guilty.

The question of course arises: Why are the acts of “mercy killing” regarded to be wrong? In reply it can be said that in the Buddhist perspective an action is regarded as morally wrong if it is rooted in unwholesome roots like greed, delusion, or hatred. Here “rooted in” means “having as the motive or intention or both.” To recommend death on the grounds of compassion may be regarded as rooted in delusion, as such the action is regarded as wrong. Moreover in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya it has been said that killing may be originated in other roots as well – for example, it may be rooted in ignorance. This happens, for instance, when a person puts his/her parents to death if the parents are suffering from severe pain and the person thinks that after dying the parents will have a new body with new organs and a painless life. This sort of death, though may seem to be good from humanitarian point of view, is regarded as unwholesome in Buddhist outlook. It is delusion to try to end a person’s suffering by killing that person. In the Buddhist perspective, death or dying is considered to be an opportunity for reflection when the individual can realize the impermanence of body, wealth, worldly attachments, etc., and as such identify the error of attachment toward such impermanent objects. In other words, death provides the individual an opportunity to have insight regarding the real nature of body, mind, and other empirical conditions. An enforced death will put an end to such an opportunity. Hence such act of encouraging death is regarded to be rooted in delusion. According to Buddhists, euthanasia dismisses the opportunity of dying in a good state of mind – calm, conscious, to be able to see the death process through and also to learn the spiritual qualities. As such, euthanasia is wrong and is not recommended.