Introduction

With the present chapter I take up the question of whether an arahant could deliberately end his or her own life, based on the story of Vakkali bringing about his own death. In subsequent chapters, I will continue to explore the same question in relation to the monks Channa and Dabba.[n.1] [2] My study is indebted to Delhey 2009, whose examination of Vakkali's suicide I intend to complement by providing translations of the two Chinese versions. My exploration of the case of Vakkali as well as of the cases of Channa and Dabba (cf. below pp. 257ff and 389ff) builds on an earlier survey of general aspects of the theme of suicide in Pāli sources, Anālayo 2007e, and on a brief study of the theme of death in early Buddhism in Anālayo 2007f. The circumstances leading to the death of Vakkali are reported in the following versions:

• a discourse in the Saṃyutta-nikāya,[n.2] [3] SN 22.87 at SN III 119,8 to 124,13.
• a discourse in the Saṃyukta-āgama,[n.3] [4] SĀ 1265 at T II 346b7 to 347b13.
• a discourse in the Ekottarika-āgama,[n.4] [5] EĀ 26.10 at T II 642b29 to 643a22.
• a Sanskrit fragment.[n.5] [6] The fragment has parts of the message that Vakkali's attendant(s) give(s) in his name to the Buddha; cf. de La Vallée Poussin 1913: 580.

In what follows I first translate the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and then compare it with the Saṃyutta-nikāya version. Then I translate the Ekottarika-āgama discourse and compare it briefly with the other versions.

---

Translation (1)

[Discourse on Vakkali][n.6] [7] The translated discourse is SĀ 1265 at T II 346b7 to 347b13, which does not have a title. Akanuma 1929/1990: 112 suggests the name of its protagonist, 跋 迦梨, as a title, which I have followed. SN 22.87 at SN III 119,8 has the title Vakkali-sutta.

Thus have I heard. At one time the Buddha was staying at Rājagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Feeding Ground. At that time the venerable Vakkali, who was staying at Rājagaha at the dwelling of a goldsmith, was ill and afflicted. The venerable Puṇṇiya was caring for him.[n.7] [8] SN 22.87 at SN III 119,13 uses the plural upaṭṭhāke, so that here Vakkali addresses several attendants (whose names are not given) who were apparently looking after him.

Then Vakkali said to Puṇṇiya: "Could you approach the Blessed One, pay respect in my name with your head at the Blessed One's feet and enquire if the Blessed One dwells at ease and is in good health, with little affliction and little vexation? [Also please] say: 'Vakkali, who is staying at the dwelling of a goldsmith, is seriously ill and confined to bed. He wishes to see the Blessed One. Being ill and afflicted, he has no strength and is not in a position to come. May the Blessed One condescend to [come] to this dwelling of the goldsmith, out of compassion!'"[n.8] [9] SN 22.87 at SN III 119,14 reports his request in a shorter form, just indicating that Vakkali is sick and requests that the Blessed One pay him a visit, out of compassion.

Then, having received the words of Vakkali, Puṇṇiya approached the Blessed One, paid respect with his head at [the Buddha's] feet, withdrew to stand to one side, and said to the Buddha: "Blessed One, the venerable Vakkali pays respect at the Blessed One's feet and enquires if the Blessed One dwells at ease and is in good health, with little affliction and little vexation?"

The Blessed One replied: "May he be at ease."[n.9] [10] An enquiry after the Buddha's health and his reply to such an enquiry are not recorded in SN 22.87.
Puṇṇiya said to the Buddha: "Blessed One, the venerable Vakkali, who is staying at the dwelling of a goldsmith, is seriously ill and confined to bed. He wishes to see the Blessed One. He does not have the bodily strength to come and call on the Blessed One. It would be well if the Blessed One could come to the dwelling of the goldsmith, out of compassion!"

Then the Blessed One assented by remaining silent. Then, knowing that the Blessed One had assented, Puṇṇiya paid respect at [the Buddha's] feet and left.

Then, in the afternoon, the Blessed One rose from his meditation and went to the dwelling of the goldsmith and arrived at Vakkali's hut.[n.10] [11] SN 22.87 does not mention the departure of the messenger or that the Buddha first spent time in meditation. On seeing the Blessed One from afar, the monk Vakkali tried to get up from his bed. The Buddha told Vakkali: "Just stop, do not get up!"

The Blessed One sat on another bed and said to Vakkali: "Is your mind able to bear the suffering of this disease? Is the affliction of your body increasing or decreasing?"

Vakkali replied to the Buddha … as described in full above in the discourse to Khema.[n.11] [12] This abbreviation (cf. in more detail above p. 142f note 10) indicates that three similes for illustrating the condition of a sick person should be supplemented here. These three similes illustrate the pain experienced by the diseased person with the examples of strong men who tighten a rope around the head of a weak person, a butcher who carves up the belly of a living cow, and two strong men who roast a weak person over a fire. "Blessed One, my body is very painful, it is difficult to bear. I wish to seek a knife and kill myself, I do not enjoy a life of pain."[n.12] [13] SN 22.87 does not have any of these similes. Instead it reports that the Buddha continues to enquire if Vakkali has any regret. When Vakkali admits that he does have some regret, the Buddha asks if this regret is on account of morality, which Vakkali denies. Asked about the reasons for his regret, Vakkali indicates that for a long time he wanted to come to see the Buddha, but had been too weak to do so. This then elicits a famous dictum by the Buddha, according to which by seeing the Dharma one sees him, SN III 120,28: yo kho, vakkali, dhammam passati so mam passati, yo maṃ passati so dhammam passati (Be, Ce, and Se throughout dhammaṃ and maṃ). Another occurrence of this dictum in a slightly different formulation can be found in It 91,12, according to which a monk who dwells with mindfulness and concentration, etc., on seeing the Dharma sees the Buddha, even if he lives at a considerable geographical distance from the Buddha; cf. also Mil 71,9, which employs this saying in an argument for the superiority of the Buddha, still evident in his teaching. Although absent from the parallels to SN 22.87, the dictum that by seeing the Dharma one sees the Buddha does make its appearance in a broad range of texts preserved in Chinese translation, often related to the statement that seeing the Dharma takes place through seeing dependent arising, cf., e.g., the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, T 1421 at T XXII 9c27, or the *Vinayamātṛkā, T 1463 at T XXIV 820b14 (just to cite two out of many examples, as an exhaustive listing of occurrence in the Chinese canon would become unwieldy).

The Buddha said to Vakkali: "I now ask you, answer according to your understanding. How is it, Vakkali, is bodily form permanent or is it impermanent?"

Vakkali replied: "It is impermanent, Blessed One."
[The Buddha] asked again: "That which is impermanent, is it dukkha?"

[Vakkali replied]: "It is dukkha, Blessed One."
[The Buddha] asked again: "Vakkali, that which is impermanent, dukkha, of a nature to change, is it proper to have greed for it, to have desire for it?"

Vakkali replied to the Buddha: "No, Blessed One!"

Feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are also to be spoken of like this …

The Buddha said to Vakkali: "If one in no way has greed for this body, has desire for it, then one's death will be a good one and one's future will also be a good one."

Then the Blessed One taught the Dharma to Vakkali in various ways. Having instructed, taught, illuminated, and delighted him, he rose from his seat and left.

During that night, the venerable Vakkali gave attention to liberation. He wished to take a knife and kill himself, as he did not enjoy living any longer.[n.13] [14] SN 22.87 at SN III 121,24 refers to Vakkali being intent on liberation not as part of the general narration, but only as part of the comment made by one of the two devas.

Then, in the later part of the night, two devas of handsome appearance approached the Blessed One, paid respect with their heads at his feet, and withdrew to stand to one side. [One of them] said to the Buddha: "Blessed One, the venerable Vakkali, being ill and afflicted, is giving attention to liberation. He wishes to take a knife and kill himself, as he does not enjoy living any longer."

The second deva said: "The venerable Vakkali is already well liberated and attaining liberation." Having said this, they paid respect at the Buddha's feet and disappeared.

When the night was over, in the morning, the Blessed One sat on a seat prepared in front of the great assembly and said to the monks: "Last night two devas of handsome appearance approached me, paid respect with their heads, and withdrew to stand to one side. [One of them] said: 'The venerable Vakkali, who is staying at the dwelling of a goldsmith, is ill and afflicted. He is giving attention to liberation. He wishes to take a knife and kill himself, as he does not enjoy living any longer.'

"The second deva said: 'The venerable Vakkali is already well liberated and attaining liberation.' Having said this, they paid respect and disappeared."

Then the Blessed One told one monk: "Go to where the venerable monk Vakkali is staying and tell Vakkali [that I said]: 'Last night two devas approached me, paid respect with their heads, and withdrew to stand to one side. [One of them] said to me: 'The venerable Vakkali is seriously ill. He is giving attention to liberation. He wishes to take a knife and kill himself, as he does not enjoy living any longer.'

"The second deva said: 'The venerable Vakkali is well liberated and attaining liberation.' Having said this, they disappeared. Regarding what these devas said, the Buddha furthermore tells you: 'If greed or desire for this body do not arise in you, then your death will be a good one and your future will be a good one.'"[n.14] [15] According to SN 22.87 at SN III 122,9, in the final part of this instruction the Buddha tells Vakkali that he need not be afraid, as his death will not be a bad one, mā bhāyi, vakkali, mā bhāyi, vakkali, apāpakaṃ (Se: apāpakan) te maraṇaṃ bhavissati apāpikā kālakiriyā.

Then, having received this instruction from the Blessed One, that monk approached Vakkali's hut, at the dwelling of the goldsmith. At that time, Vakkali had told those who were nursing him: "Take this rope bed with my body on it and place it outside the dwelling. I wish to take a knife and kill myself, I do not enjoy living any longer."[n.15] [16] At an earlier juncture, before mentioning the two devas, SN 22.87 at SN III 121,11 reports that Vakkali asks his attendants (without explicitly mentioning his wish to kill himself) to take him to the Black Rock on Mount Isigili, as he does not want to pass away inside a house. Mount Isigili is the location where, according to SN 4.23 at SN I 121,19, the monk Godhika committed suicide and where, according to Jā V 125,23, Mahāmoggallāna was staying when he was murdered.

At that time many monks had gone outside the huts and were practising walking meditation in the open. The messenger monk approached those many monks. He asked the many monks: "Venerable ones, where is the monk Vakkali staying?"

The monks replied: "The monk Vakkali has told those who are nursing him: 'Now carry this rope bed outside the dwelling. I wish to take a knife and kill myself, I do not enjoy living any longer.'"

The messenger monk promptly approached Vakkali. The monk Vakkali saw from afar the messenger monk coming. He told those nursing him: "Put the rope bed down on the ground. That monk is coming quickly, he seems to be a messenger from the Blessed One."

The nurses put the bed down on the ground. Then the messenger monk said to Vakkali: "The Blessed One has an instruction for you and there is something that has been said by devas."

Then Vakkali said to the nurse: "Put me on the ground, I cannot be on a bed when receiving an instruction from the Blessed One and something that has been said by devas."

Then the nurse promptly put Vakkali down on the ground. Then Vakkali said: "[Now] you can deliver the instruction spoken by the Blessed One and what has been said by devas."

The messenger monk said: "Vakkali, the great teacher tells you: 'Last night two devas approached me.[n.16] Adopting a variant that adds 昨, in keeping with the formulation used earlier. [One of them] said to me: "The monk Vakkali is seriously ill. He is giving attention to liberation. He wishes to take a knife and kill himself, as he does not enjoy living any longer."

'The second deva said: "The monk Vakkali is already well liberated and attaining liberation." Having said this, they disappeared.' The Blessed One also tells you: 'Your death will be a good one and your future will be a good one.'"[n.17] Delhey 2009: 87 note 59 remarks that, whereas the Buddha's original statement has a conditional sense, indicating that Vakkali's death will be a good one if no greed or desire for the body arise in him, the messenger does not mention greed or desire and only informs Vakkali that his death will be a good one. Delhey comments that "this seems to indicate that there are no doubts regarding the question whether Vakkali has fulfilled this condition."

Vakkali said: "Venerable one, the great teacher well knows what is to be known, he well sees what is to be seen. Those two devas well know what is to be known, well see what is to be seen.[n.18] In SN 22.87 Vakkali does not confirm the statements made about him by the Buddha and the two devas. Now for me there is definitely no doubt that this bodily form is impermanent;[n.19] Adopting a variant without 常; cf. also Yìnshùn 1983c: 739 note 5. there is definitely no doubt that what is impermanent is dukkha; there is definitely no doubt that in no way do I have greed or desire for what is impermanent, dukkha, of a nature to change … feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are also like this … The disease is now troubling my body just as before, I wish to [take] a knife and kill myself, as I do not enjoy living any longer."

He promptly took a knife and killed himself.[n.20] In SN 22.87 at SN III 123,8 the messengers leave before Vakkali uses the knife.
Then, having taken care of the dead body of Vakkali, the messenger monk returned to where the Buddha was, paid respect with his head at [the Buddha's] feet, stepped back to sit to one side, and said to the Buddha: "Blessed One, I reported the Blessed One's instruction in full to the venerable Vakkali. He said this: 'The great teacher well knows what is to be known, he well sees what is to be seen. Those two devas well know what is to be known, well see what is to be seen … to be spoken in full up to … He took a knife and killed himself."

Then the Blessed One told the monks: "Let us go together to the dwelling of the goldsmith, to the place where Vakkali's corpse is."

[Having arrived], he saw that Vakkali's dead body had an appearance of detachment.[n.21] SN 22.87 at SN III 123,32 instead indicates that he was lying with his shoulders twisted, vivattakkhandhaṃ semānaṃ (Se: seyyamānaṃ). Having seen it, he said to the monks: "Did you see that the dead body of this monk Vakkali on the ground has an appearance of detachment?"

The monks said to the Buddha: "We have seen it, Blessed One."[n.22] SN 22.87 does not record a query by the Buddha on whether the monks see the condition of Vakkali's body.

[The Buddha] said again to the monks: "Around Vakkali's body, circling about it on the four sides, isn't there a dark shape moving around the body?"

The monks replied to the Buddha: "We have seen it, Blessed One."

The Buddha told the monks: "This is the shape of Māra, the Evil One. He is moving around searching where the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali will be reborn."[n.23] On the present reference in SĀ 1265 at T II 347b10 to Vakkali's consciousness as 識神 cf. Park 2012: 190f.

The Buddha told the monks: "The clansman Vakkali took a knife and killed himself with an unestablished consciousness."

At that time, the Blessed One declared that Vakkali had [reached] the ultimate.[n.24] [23] Such a statement and the standard conclusion to a discourse are not found in SN 22.87. When the Buddha had spoken this discourse, hearing what the Buddha had said the monks were delighted and received it respectfully.

---

Study (1)

The accounts of Vakkali's suicide in the Saṃyukta-āgama and Saṃyutta-nikāya versions agree that Vakkali passed away as an arahant. According to the Pāli commentary, Vakkali had mistakenly believed himself to be an arahant, but in reality was only a worldling.[n.25] Spk II 314,25; cf. also Filliozat 1963: 33. After committing suicide, however, he still managed to progress all the way to full awakening.

That Vakkali indeed believed himself to be liberated could be gathered from his last message to the Buddha, in which according to both versions he affirms his insight and detachment in regard to the five aggregates. However, the remainder of the two discourses does not necessarily give the impression that this should be understood as an overestimation on his part.

For an assessment of Vakkali's liberation in these two discourses, the statements made by the two devas and the Buddha's reassurance that Vakkali's death will be a good one are of particular relevance.

Regarding the statements by the two devas, in the Saṃyukta-āgama version the first deva indicates that Vakkali is ill, that he is giving attention to liberation, and that he wishes to kill himself. The deva's message thus appears to be that he is intending to liberate himself from his sick and painful situation by suicide. In the Saṃyutta-nikāya version, however, the first deva only states that Vakkali is intent on liberation, without referring to suicide.[n.26] SN 22.87 at SN III 121,24: vakkali, bhante, bhikkhu vimokkhāya ceteti. Thus the Pāli version's statement need not imply that Vakkali is intent on liberating himself from his pain through suicide, but could also mean that he is intent on winning mental liberation by implementing the instructions on insight he had earlier received from the Buddha.

The second deva's statement in the Saṃyukta-āgama version affirms that Vakkali is already well liberated.[n.27] SĀ 1265 at T II 346c13: "the venerable Vakkali is already well liberated and attaining liberation", 彼尊者跋迦梨已於善解脫而得解脫. The use of the character 已 makes it unmistakeably clear that the reference to being "well liberated", 善解脫, corresponding to suvimutta in SN 22.87 at SN II 122,26, is a past event (although in one out of three repetitions of this statement the 已 is not found, which, however, could simply be an error that occurred during translation or copying). The reference to "attaining liberation", 得解脫, does not explicitly indicate a future form in the Indic original, comparable to the Pāli version's vimuccissati, which could have found expression in some indicator of the future tense, such as 未來, for example, or 後. Its Pāli counterpart states that "well liberated he will be liberated."[n.28] SN 22.87 at SN II 122,26: suvimutto vimuccissati. This could be interpreted in two ways. According to the Pāli commentarial gloss, the pronouncement by the second deva is a prediction that Vakkali will still become an arahant, i.e., he will be liberated in a way that is well.[n.29] Spk II 314,19 explains that the deva spoke like this knowing that Vakkali would develop insight and become an arahant. Bodhi 2000: 939 then translates the passage as meaning that Vakkali "will be liberated as one well liberated". Alternatively, the passage could be affirming that Vakkali is already well liberated mentally and now is about to liberate himself also from his painful situation by putting an end to his life.[n.30] Delhey 2009: 77 comments that the reference to suvimutto vimuccissati in SN 22.87 "makes only good sense when both expressions refer to two different kinds of release which follow each other in chronological order", concluding that suvimutto would refer to Vakkali's liberation from the fetters and vimuccissati to his liberation from disease by death. In a similar vein, Vetter 2000: 233 translates suvimutto vimuccissati as implying that Vakkali with "[his mind] well-freed, will be freed"; cf. also Lamotte 1965: 161: "déjà libéré, il serait délivré."

In the Saṃyukta-āgama version the Buddha's pronouncement on Vakkali's good death occurs after he has been informed that Vakkali is about to kill himself. Given that the Buddha sends a messenger to inform Vakkali of this pronouncement, he seems to be encouraging Vakkali's planned suicide.

In the Saṃyutta-nikāya parallel this is less evident, since here the Buddha's prediction that Vakkali's death will not be an evil one comes at a time when Vakkali's intention to commit suicide has not yet found explicit expression. Nevertheless, according to one of the above interpretations of the statements by the two devas, this could have been expressed implicitly.[n.31] Keown 1996: 17 suggests that the Buddha's pronouncement "may be intended as [a] simple reassurance to Vakkali that he has nothing to fear from death, or a prediction that he will die an Arhat." A similar statement, addressed to the lay follower Mahānāma, can be found in SN 55.21 at SN V 369,20 and SN 55.22 at SN V 371,6, where it does appear to have this sense. However, as pointed out by Delhey 2009: 78, given the actual context of this statement in SN 22.87, "Vakkali must understand this message as an assurance that the Buddha approves of his intention to kill himself." Berglie and Suneson 1986: 32 similarly understand this part of SN 22.87 to contain an explicit endorsement of Vakkali's intention to kill himself. Moreover, in the Saṃyutta-nikāya discourse the whole episode with the two devas and the Buddha's pronouncement comes after Vakkali has asked his attendants to carry him outside. In other words, although not explicitly stated, his suicide is clearly in the air.[n.32] Delhey 2009: 77 notes that "obviously he makes last preparations for his death. In view of the fact that Vakkali commits suicide afterwards and that it is not mentioned before that death by natural causes is immediately impending, it is highly probable that Vakkali already at this point in time intends to end his life by his own hand."

According to the commentary on the Saṃyutta-nikāya, Vakkali's actual attainment of full awakening during the last few moments of his life was triggered by the onset of the pain of death.[n.33] Spk II 314,29: ath' assa dukkhā vedanā uppajjati. so tasmiṃ khaṇe attano puthujjanabhāvaṃ ñatvā … arahattaṃ pāpuṇitvā va kālam akāsi. In view of the fact that Vakkali was anyway in great pain, this explanation does not seem to fit the present context too well.[n.34] Delhey 2009: 83 comments that "since Vakkali is right from the start depicted as suffering terrible pains through his illness, this seems to be a rather farfetched solution." This gives the impression that the present commentary is perhaps simply a replica of the commentary on the report of Godhika deliberately ending his own life, another case relevant to the topic of suicides who pass away as arahants.

Unlike Vakkali, the monk Godhika had not been sick or in pain, but had resorted to suicide because he had several times lost a temporary liberation of the mind. In discourses in the Pāli Nikāyas and their parallels in the Chinese Āgamas, the expression liberation of the mind (cetovimutti) – when occurring on its own and without the qualification "unshakeable" (akuppa) – does not stand for the type of liberation gained with the different levels of awakening, but only for the experience of deep levels of concentration.[n.35] A detailed study of the concept of cetovimutti can be found in de Silva 1978; cf. also Anālayo 2009i.

This meaning is particularly evident in the case of Godhika, whose liberation is explicitly qualified as temporary.[n.36] The reading samādhikam cetovimuttiṃ in SN 4.23 at SN I 120,23 is not supported by the Asian editions (Be and Ce: sāmayikaṃ, Se: sāmāyikaṃ; Somaratna's new PTS edition of SN 4.23 (p. 265,1) adopts the reading sāmayikaṃ). The reading "temporary liberation" receives confirmation from the parallel versions SĀ 1091 at T II 286a5: 時受意解脫, SĀ2 30 at T II 382c12: 得時解 脫, and D 4094 nyu 32a2 or Q 5595 thu 68b3: dus kyis sems rnam par grol ba; cf. also de La Vallée Poussin 1936. Given the transitory nature of such a "temporary" liberation, Godhika need no longer be in this attainment when he commits suicide, as assumed by Bingenheimer 2007: 52 and Choong 2009: 41. What the discourse versions indicate is only that he repeatedly had "direct experience" of a temporary liberation of the mind, SN 4.23 at SN I 120,23: phusi, SĀ 1091 at T II 286a5 and SĀ² 30 at T II 382c12: 身作證, and D 4094 nyu 32a2 or Q 5595 thu 68b3: lus kyis mngon sum du byas so, where the expressions used in the Chinese and Tibetan versions would correspond to kāyena sacchikatvā in Pāli; on the significance of the instrumental kāyena in such contexts cf. Anālayo 2011b: 379 note 203. In other words, he had attained absorption six or perhaps seven times. After emerging from this experience, he apparently was unable to attain absorption again. Whether or not he had regained this ability a seventh time, what can be gathered from other discourses regarding the nature of absorption attainment (cf. Anālayo 2014e and 2015e) makes it fairly clear that it would not have been possible for him to take hold of a knife and kill himself while in such an attainment. His "using the knife" could have taken place only after coming out of the attainment. Judging from the *Tattvasiddhi, T 1646 at T XXXII 257c16, noted in Delhey 2006: 41, the problem seems to have been that absorption attainment was required as the basis for his path to full liberation, hence loss of absorption prevented his final breakthrough. This breakthrough then apparently became possible by taking the situation of death as an alternative basis. The time of death and even of attempted suicide (cf., e.g., Thī 81 or Th 407–409) features in early Buddhist texts as a situation with considerable potential for awakening. This explanation would help make sense of the intervention by Māra in order to stop Godhika's suicide and of the Buddha's stanzas approving Godhika's deed. Spk I 183,9 instead reasons that Godhika wanted to make sure of being at least reborn in the Brahmā world. In this case, too, he would not need to be in the attainment of absorption at the moment of committing suicide, but would require only that his ability to attain absorption be still intact at the time of his death. This interpretation would also make sense of Māra's intervention, since, pace Bingenheimer 2011: 120, going beyond Māra's reach is already possible with the experience of absorption (or with rebirth in the corresponding Brahmā world); cf., e.g., MN 25 at MN I 159,11 and its parallel MĀ 178 at T I 720a9. In other words, that Godhika had attained a temporary liberation of the mind does not imply that he had reached any level of awakening, let alone that he was an arahant.[n.37] The assumption by Becker 1990: 547 that in SN 4.23 Godhika "committed suicide during his next period of enlightenment" does not seem correct; cf. also Boyd 1975: 98, whose suggestion that "Godhika had touched temporary emancipation of mind and thereby vanquished death" seems to imply the same misunderstanding. Only in what appear to be re-workings of this event from the perspective of the evolving parihāṇadharma theory, found in versions of this tale in a Chinese Udāna collection, T 212 at T IV 647b5 (on this text in general cf. below p. 463ff) and in the *Mahāvibhāṣā, T 1546 at T XXVIII 241b27, already noted in Bingenheimer 2007: 52, does he fall away from arahantship. According to the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya 6.58, Pradhan 1967: 376,6, however, this case does not belong to the parihāṇadharma category, as Godhika became an arahant only at the time of death, hence what he fell away from earlier was not arahantship, but temporary liberation. The Abhidharmakośavyākhyā, Wogihara 1936: 590,14, adds that he had been a disciple in higher training, a śaikṣa, not an arhat, as already noted by Berglie and Suneson 1986: 36; cf. also Ruegg 1989: 149. His status as a śaikṣa is also implicit in SĀ2 30 at T II 382c12, according to which he had already eradicated the view of a self, 斷於我見. Thus the commentarial description of the pain of death triggering a progress to full awakening during the short period between the act of suicide and the ensuing death would fit the case of Godhika.[n.38] The impact of painful feelings leading to Godhika's full awakening is described at Spk I 183,25. In contrast, it does not seem to fit the case of Vakkali.

Regarding the gloss on Vakkali's suicide in the commentary on the Saṃyutta-nikāya, it is noteworthy that other commentaries in the Theravāda tradition associate his full awakening with a different occasion.[n.39] Dhp-a IV 119,18, Mp I 251,2, and Th-a II 148,4 report that Vakkali became an arahant on being taught the stanza found at Dhp 381; cf. also Ap II 467,24 (stanza 529.33). In the commentaries, his full awakening is preceded by an attempt to throw himself from Mount Vulture Peak out of desperation at not being able to see the Buddha; cf. also Trainor 1997: 182f. A tale similar in several respects can be found in the Divyāvadāna, which reports that, before becoming a monk and at what appears to be his first encounter with the Buddha, Vakkalin throws himself from a mountain out of faith on having seen the Buddha's thirty-two marks. He is saved through an intervention by the Buddha, who gives him an instruction, whereupon he becomes a non-returner, Cowell and Neil 1886: 49,13; cf. also T 1448 at T XXIV 15b22 and D 1 kha 3b7 or Q 1030 ge 3b3. According to SĀ 926 at T II 236b9 and SĀ2 151 at T II 431a28, already noted in Delhey 2009: 88, Vakkali had already attained liberation from the influxes during a discourse delivered by the Buddha on what is clearly another occasion. From the perspective of these texts, Vakkali was already an arahant or at least a non-returner before he went through the experiences that led up to his suicide. In other words, the Saṃyutta-nikāya commentary on the Vakkali case stands in contradiction to other Pāli commentaries,[n.40] For another disagreement between the commentaries, probably also a sign of later influences, cf. above p. 190f notes 90f and p. 193 note 94. confirming the impression that its presentation may be a case of copying from the Saṃyutta-nikāya commentary on the Godhika case.

A presentation that in several respects agrees with the position adopted by the Saṃyutta-nikāya commentary can, however, be found in the third discourse version of Vakkali's suicide, which is preserved in the Ekottarika-āgama.

---

Translation (2)

[Discourse on Vakkali][n.41] The translated discourse is EĀ 26.10 at T II 642b29 to 643a22. Although EĀ 26.10 does not have a title, the summary verse at T II 643a24 refers to the discourse by the name of its main protagonist 婆迦梨, which I have adopted; cf. also Akanuma 1929/1990: 135.

Thus have I heard. At one time the Buddha was staying at Sāvatthī in Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's Park.[n.42] SN 22.87 at SN III 119,9 and SĀ 1265 at T II 346b7 have the Squirrels' Feeding Ground in the Bamboo Grove at Rājagaha as their location. At that time the venerable Vakkali was physically seriously ill. He was lying in his own excrements. He wished to kill himself with a knife, [yet] he did not have the strength to sit up on his own.[n.43] SN 22.87 and SĀ 1265 do not describe his disease in such detail. Judging from Th 350, Vakkali may have had a propensity to affliction by wind, vātaroga, translated by Norman 1969: 38 as "colic"; on affliction by wind in general cf. also Zysk 1991: 92–96. Then the venerable Vakkali told his attendant:

"You could now bring me a knife, I want to kill myself.[n.44] SN 22.87 and SĀ 1265 proceed differently. In their accounts Vakkali asks his attendant(s) to convey a message to the Buddha. The reason is that among the present disciples of the Buddha Sakyamuni, who are liberated by faith, none is superior to me.[n.45] EĀ 26.10 at T II 642c5: 信解脫者. A listing of eminent disciples in EĀ 4.5 at T II 557c20 indeed qualifies Vakkali as foremost for having attained liberation by faith, his mind being without hesitation, 得信解脫, 意無猶豫. Similar indications can be found in another such listing in T 126 at T II 831b5 and in a comment on the listing in EĀ 4.5, found in T 1507 at T XXV 46c23; cf. also a reference to his propensity for faith in T 1509 at T XXV 239b1, translated in Lamotte 1944/1970: 1546. The listing of eminent disciples in AN 1.14 at AN I 24,15 reckons Vakkali foremost among those who are devoted by faith, saddhādhimutta; cf. also Sn 1146, which qualifies Vakkali as muttasaddha (on the term cf. Norman 1992: 390). The Divyāvadāna, Cowell and Neil 1886: 49,17, also reckons him outstanding for being śraddhādhimukta. According to Ap II 466,9, Mp I 249,3, and Th-a II 147,6, Vakkali had aspired to such preeminence in a past life at the time of Padumuttara Buddha. Yet to this day my mind has not been liberated from the influx of becoming. That is the reason [why I want to kill myself]. When a disciple of the Tathāgata encounters such agony,[n.46] Adopting a variant that does not have 然. he will also seek a knife and kill himself. Of what use is this life to me? I am [anyway] not able to get from this shore to the other shore."

At this time, the disciple of Vakkali had not long gone forth, he did not yet know about this world and the next world, he did not know about getting from this shore to the other shore, and he also did not know that on dying here one will be reborn elsewhere.[n.47] The different interpretation of this text passage in Delhey 2009: 81 and 107 has been corrected by the author himself, see his correction page at academia.edu. So he got a knife and gave it [to Vakkali]. Then Vakkali, having gotten the knife in his hand, being firmly established in faith, grasped the knife and stabbed himself.

At that time, just as he was stabbing himself with the knife, Vakkali thought: "Among disciples of the Buddha Sakyamuni this is contrary to the Dharma, it has evil results, not good results, [namely] without having attained realization in the Dharma of the Tathāgata to end one's life."

Then the venerable Vakkali gave attention to the five aggregates of clinging: "This is reckoned to be form, this is reckoned to be the arising of form, this is reckoned to be the cessation of form; this is reckoned to be feeling … perception … formations … consciousness; this is reckoned to be the arising of feeling … perception … formations … consciousness; this is reckoned to be the cessation of feeling … perception … formations … consciousness."

Maturely giving attention to the five aggregates of clinging, [he realized that] whatever is of a nature to arise is of a nature to cease. Knowing this, his mind attained liberation from the influx of becoming.[n.48] Vakkali's attainment of liberation is also reported in another discourse in the same collection, EĀ 51.8 at T II 820a11, already noted in Delhey 2009: 82 note 40, which indicates that Vakkali attained liberation of the mind on looking at the knife (presumably the blood-stained knife with which he had just stabbed himself), 婆伽梨比丘觀視於刀. Another passage related to Vakkali, noted by Delhey 2009: 84 note 44, can be found in EĀ 41.8 at T II 742a23, which presents him as exemplary for recollection of death. At that time the venerable Vakkali attained final Nirvāṇa in the element of Nirvāṇa without remainder.

At that time the Blessed One heard with his divine ear that the venerable Vakkali was seeking a knife to kill himself. Then the Blessed One told Ānanda: "Let all the monks staying [in the area around] the town of Sāvatthī assemble in one place. I wish to address them."

Then, having received this instruction from the Blessed One, the venerable Ānanda assembled all the monks in the assembly hall and returned to inform the Blessed One: "The monks are now assembled in one place."

Then the Blessed One, together with the community of monks, surrounded by them on all sides, went to the dwelling place of the monk Vakkali.

Right at that time, Māra the Evil One wanted to find out where the consciousness of the venerable Vakkali had become established, [thinking]: "Where is it? Among humans? Or among non-humans – among devas, nāgas, petas, gandhabbas, asuras, garuḍas, mahoragas, or yakkhas? Where is this consciousness now? In what sphere has it been reborn to fare on?

I do not see it in the east, west, north or south, in the four intermediate directions, above or below, all around. I do not know the whereabouts of his consciousness." Then, not knowing where it was, Māra, the Evil One, became physically exhausted.

Then the Blessed One, together with the community of monks, surrounded by them on all sides, arrived at the dwelling [of Vakkali]. Then the Blessed One saw that Māra, the Evil One, wanted to find out where the consciousness [of Vakkali] had been established. The Blessed One said to the monks: "Did you hear that great noise in this dwelling? [Did you see] that strange light?"

The monks replied: "Indeed, Blessed One, we saw it."

The Blessed One said: "This is Māra, the Evil One. He wants to find out where the consciousness of Vakkali has become established."

Then the venerable Ānanda said to the Blessed One: "May the Blessed One declare it. Where has the consciousness of the monk Vakkali become established?"

The Blessed One said: "The consciousness of the monk Vakkali is forever without attachment. That clansman has thus attained final Nirvāṇa. You should remember it like this."

Then the venerable Ānanda said to the Blessed One: "On which day did the monk Vakkali attain [full insight into] the four truths?"

The Blessed One said: "He attained [full insight into] the four truths today."[n.49] On the absence of the qualification "noble" in references to the four (noble) truths cf. Anālayo 2006a.

Ānanda said to the Buddha: "This monk had been ill for a long time, originally he was a worldling."

The Blessed One said: "That is so, Ānanda, it is as you said. That monk had been dissatisfied with being in great pain for a very long time, yet, among disciples of the Buddha Sakyamuni, who have been liberated by faith, this person was foremost. Although his mind had not yet been liberated from the influx of becoming, [he thought]: 'I shall now seek a knife and stab myself.'

"Then, just when that monk was about to stab himself, he gave attention to the qualities of the Tathāgata. On the day when he gave up his life, he gave attention to the five aggregates of clinging: 'This is reckoned to be the arising of form, this is the cessation of form …' When having given attention to this, that monk [realized that] whatever is of a nature to arise is all of a nature to cease. This monk has attained final Nirvāṇa."

When hearing what the Buddha had said, the venerable Ānanda was delighted and received it respectfully.

---

Study (2)

The Ekottarika-āgama version differs substantially from the other two versions.[n.50] Delhey 2009: 80 comments that EĀ 26.10 "differs from both the other two versions to such an extent that only few common elements are remaining." What remains as common ground is that Vakkali is sick and commits suicide, and that after his death the Buddha goes with the monks to the site of the suicide and there sees Māra searching in vain for the place where Vakkali's consciousness has been established. As in the other versions, the Buddha confirms that Vakkali passed away as an arahant.

A puzzling aspect of the Ekottarika-āgama version's depiction of events is that, by asking another monk to bring him a knife so that he can commit suicide, Vakkali would have directly incited this monk to commit a pārājika offence. The code of rules in the different Vinayas shows close agreement in indicating that to assist another person in committing suicide falls into the same category as intentionally killing another human being. [n.51] Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, T 1429 at T XXII 1015c13: 持刀授與人, Kāśyapīya Vinaya, T 1460 at T XXIV 660a2: 或求持刀, Mahāsāṅghika Vinaya, Tatia 1975: 7,9: śastrahārakaṃ vāsya paryeṣeya, Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, T 1422 at T XXII 195a13: 若與刀藥殺, Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, Banerjee 1977: 14,13: śastraṃ vainām ādhārayet śāstradhārakaṃ vāsya paryeṣeta, Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, von Simson 2000: 164,2: chastraṃ vainam ādhārayec chastrādhārakaṃ vāsya paryeṣayed, Theravāda Vinaya, Vin III 73,11: satthahārakaṃ vāssa pariyeseyya. Since the Buddha hears with his divine ear that Vakkali is seeking a knife to kill himself, he would presumably have been fully aware of this act, yet the remaining discourse does not report even a passing comment on this.

Another noteworthy aspect appears to be an internal inconsistency. When addressing his attendant, Vakkali states that "when a disciple of the Tathāgata encounters such agony, he will also seek a knife and kill himself", but a little later on he reflects that "it has evil results, not good results, [namely] without having attained realization in the Dharma of the Tathāgata to end one's life." These two passages are not easily reconciled with each other and read as if they stem from different sources.

Delhey (2009: 99 and 81) is therefore probably correct when he concludes that "this version can best be understood as a secondary reinterpretation of the original account", in the sense of being "an exegetical recension of the Vakkalisutta".[n.52] A presentation that agrees with Spk that Vakkali reached liberation after he had killed himself can be found in a commentary on the listing of eminent disciples in the Ekottarika-āgama, T 1507 at T XXV 46c23, already noted by Koike 2001: 157 note 26, which by way of providing a background to Vakkali's eminence in regard to faith relates the circumstances of his suicide; cf. also the same work at T XXV 37b6, noted in Delhey 2009: 84 note 48, and on T 1507 in general the study by Palumbo 2013. Although likely reflecting developments later than what can be found in the Saṃyukta-āgama and Saṃyutta-nikāya versions, the Ekottarika-āgama version nevertheless shows that the commentary on the Saṃyutta-nikāya does not stand alone in finding it difficult to conceive of an awakened one committing suicide.