Introduction

In this chapter I continue to explore the topic of whether an arahant could deliberately end his or her own life, based on the perspective afforded by the report of Channa's suicide. This report is found in the following discourses:

• the Channovāda-sutta in the Majjhima-nikāya,[n.1] MN 144 at MN III 263,13 to 266,33.
• the Channa-sutta in the Saṃyutta-nikāya,[n.2] SN 35.87 at SN IV 55,28 to 60,5.
• a discourse in the Saṃyukta-āgama.[n.3] SĀ 1266 at T II 347b14 to 348b1.

In what follows I first translate the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse and then compare it with the Pāli versions.

---

Translation

[Discourse to Channa][n.4] [3&4] The translated discourse is SĀ 1266 at T II 347b14 to 348b1. For ease of comparison, I adopt the paragraph numbering used in the English translation of MN 144 in Ñāṇamoli 1995/2005: 1114–1116; the translation of SN 35.87 in Bodhi 2000: 1164–1167 does not use paragraph numbering. SĀ 1266 does not have a title. Akanuma 1929/1990: 112 suggests the name of its main protagonist, 闡陀, as a title, which I have followed. 闡陀 could in principle be rendering Chanda, Chandaka, or Channa; cf. Akanuma 1930/1994: 128. On the different Channas known in the Theravāda tradition cf. also Malalasekera 1937/1995: 923f.

1. Thus have I heard. At one time, the Buddha was staying at Rājagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Feeding Ground.

2. Then the venerable Channa, who was staying in Pāvārika's Mango Grove at Nālanda,[n.5] According to SN 35.87 at SN IV 55,31, he was staying at Mount Vulture Peak, together with Sāriputta and Mahācunda. was seriously ill.

3. Then the venerable Sāriputta heard that the venerable Channa, who was staying in Pāvārika's Mango Grove at Nālanda, was seriously ill. Having heard it, he said to the venerable Mahākoṭṭhita:[n.6] In SN 35.87 at SN IV 56,1 the other monk whom Sāriputta invites to come along to visit Channa is Mahācunda. For a discussion of variations regarding the identity of a protagonist in a discourse cf. Anālayo 2007g. "Venerable friend, did you know that the venerable Channa, who is staying in Pāvārika's Mango Grove at Nālanda, is seriously ill? We should go together to see him."

The venerable Mahākoṭṭhita agreed by remaining silent.[n.7] SN 35.87 at SN IV 56,5 reports that the other monk (Mahācunda) verbalizes his agreement.

4. Then, the venerable Sāriputta and the venerable Mahākoṭṭhita together approached Pāvārika's Mango Grove at Nālanda and went to the hut where the venerable Channa was staying. On seeing from afar the venerable Sāriputta and the venerable Mahākoṭṭhita, the venerable Channa wanted to get up from the bed on which he was resting. The venerable Sāriputta said to the venerable Channa: "Do not get up now!"[n.8] A description of Channa trying to get up to receive his visitors is not found in SN 35.87. Similar descriptions are a recurrent feature in other Pāli discourses, cf., e.g., SN 22.87 at SN III 120,2, SN 22.88 at SN III 125,4, SN 35.74 at SN IV 46,13, SN 35.75 at SN IV 47,ult., and AN 6.56 at AN III 379,16. In these instances such an action is undertaken by a sick monk to express his respect when the Buddha is arriving, not towards a fellow monk; cf. also above p. 237 for a sick monk adopting specially respectful behaviour on the arrival of the Buddha.

The venerable Sāriputta and the venerable Mahākoṭṭhita sat on another seat and asked the venerable Channa: "How is it, venerable Channa, is your affliction bearable, is it getting worse or better?" … as above described in full in the discourse to Khema.[n.9] 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. In addition to these three illustrations, SN 35.87 at SN IV 56,17 describes a strong man cleaving someone's head with a sharp sword.

5. The venerable Channa said: "My body is ill now, extremely painful so that it is difficult to bear, the disease that has manifested is getting worse, not better. I just wish to take a knife and kill myself, as I do not enjoy living in pain."[n.10] In SN 35.87 at SN IV 57,6 Channa explains that he does not wish to live.

6. The venerable Sāriputta said: "Venerable Channa, you should make an effort, do not harm yourself. While you are alive, I will come to take care of you. If you lack anything,[n.11] SN 35.87 at SN IV 57,10 reports that Sāriputta also offered to supply Channa with food. I shall supply you with medicine in accordance with the Dharma. If you do not have anyone to attend to your sickness, I will certainly attend on you in conformity with your wishes, not contrary to your wishes."

7. Channa replied: "I am provided for. The brahmins and householders of Nālanda are looking after me fully, I do not lack anything [regarding] robes, blankets, beverages, food, bedding, and medicine. I have my own disciples, living the holy life, who look after my illness in accordance with my wishes, not contrary to my wishes. Yet my disease oppresses this body with extreme pain that is difficult to bear.

I just wish to kill myself, as I do not delight in a life of pain."[n.12] Instead of indicating that he does not delight in a life of pain, in SN 35.87 at SN IV 57,23 Channa mentions that he has served the teacher in an agreeable way and proclaims that his using the knife will be blameless; cf. below note 21.

8. Sāriputta said: "I will now ask you, you may answer me in accordance with what you think.[n.13] In SN 35.87 at SN IV 57,28 Sāriputta first asks permission to put his questions. Channa, the eye, eyeconsciousness, and the forms cognized by the eye – could this be the self, [or] be distinct from the self [in the sense of being owned by it], or exist [within the self, or could a self] exist [within it]?"[n.14] On this formulation cf. above p. 70 notes 31 and 32.

Channa replied: "No".
9. The venerable Sāriputta asked again: "Channa, the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind, mind-consciousness and the mind-objects cognized through mind-consciousness – could this be the self, [or] be distinct from the self [in the sense of being owned by it], or exist [within the self, or could a self] exist [within it]?"

Channa replied: "No".
10. The venerable Sāriputta asked again: "Channa, what have you seen in the eye, eye-consciousness, and forms, what have you cognized, what have you known, wherefore you state that the eye, eye-consciousness, and forms are not the self, are not distinct from the self [in the sense of being owned by it], do not exist [within the self, and are without a self] existing [within them]?"

Channa replied: "I have seen the cessation of the eye, eyeconsciousness, and forms, I have known their cessation, [n.15] [16] This reference to having seen the cessation of sense-experience, found similarly in SN 35.87 at SN IV 58,32, would imply that he claims to have experienced Nirvāṇa and reached some level of awakening, although not necessarily the highest. therefore I see eye, eye-consciousness, and forms as not the self, as not distinct from the self [in the sense of being owned by it], as not existing [within the self, and as being without a self] existing [within it]."[n.16] [17] Unlike SĀ 1266, which has a question-and-answer exchange for each sense (with the cases of the ear, nose, tongue, and body presented in an abbreviated manner), in SN 35.87 at SN IV 58,22 Sāriputta continues right away by enquiring after the other senses, with Channa in his reply covering all six senses. This seems more to the point, since once Channa indicates that he has experienced cessation, there would be little need to continue questioning him about the other sense-spheres.

[Sāriputta] asked again: "Channa, what have you seen in the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind, mind-consciousness, and mind-objects, what have you known, wherefore you see mind, mind-consciousness, and mind-objects as not the self, as not distinct from the self [in the sense of being owned by it], as not existing [within the self, and as being without a self] existing [within it]?"

Channa replied: "Venerable Sāriputta, I have seen the cessation of mind, mind-consciousness, and mind-objects, I have known their cessation, therefore I see mind, mind-consciousness, and mind-objects as not the self, as not distinct from the self [in the sense of being owned by it], as not existing [within the self, and as being without a self] existing [within it].

"Venerable Sāriputta, yet now my body is sick and in pain, I am not able to bear it. I wish to take a knife and kill myself, as I do not delight in a life of pain."[n.17] [18] In the corresponding section of SN 35.87 at SN IV 59,6, Channa does not repeat his intention to commit suicide.

11. Then the venerable Mahākoṭṭhita said to the venerable Channa: "You should now develop proper recollection of the great teacher, according to the maxim taught by him: 'If there is dependency, there is agitation. If there is agitation, there is inclination. If there is inclination, there is no tranquillity. If there is no tranquillity, then there arises coming and going. If coming and going arises, then there is future birth and death. Because there is future birth and death, there is future appearing and disappearing. Because there is future appearing and disappearing, there is birth, old age, disease, death, sadness, sorrow, vexation, and pain. In this way, this entire great mass of dukkha arises.'[n.18] [19] Adopting the variant 大 instead of 一, in accordance with the corresponding formulation in the treatment of the cessation of dukkha below; cf. also Yìnshùn 1983c: 739 note 7. The corresponding maxim in SN 35.87 at SN IV 59,10 is rather brief, as it mentions only dependency and agitation.

"According to the maxim taught [by the great teacher]: 'If there is no dependency, there is no agitation. If there is no agitation, there is no inclination. If there is no inclination, there is tranquillity. Because there is tranquillity, there arises no coming and going. If no coming and going arises, there is no future appearing and disappearing.[n.19] [20] The intermediate step of "future birth and death" is not mentioned any longer. If there is no future appearing and disappearing, there is no birth, old age, disease, death, sadness, sorrow, vexation, and pain. In this way, this entire great mass of dukkha ceases.'"[n.20] [21] The corresponding maxim in SN 35.87 at SN IV 59,10 indicates that the absence of dependency leads to the absence of agitation, to tranquillity, to no inclination, to no coming and going, to no passing away and being reborn, to being neither here, nor there, nor in between, and concludes that this is the end of dukkha; for another occurrence of a similar series cf. Ud 8.4 at Ud 81,6.

Channa said: "Venerable Mahākoṭthita, my service to the Blessed One is now completed,[n.21] [22] SN 35.87 has no reply by Channa at this point. A comparable statement by Channa occurs in SN 35.87 at SN IV 57,23 at an earlier point in the discourse, before Sāriputta checks Channa's development of insight by questioning him on his attitude towards the senses. At that point in SN 35.87 at SN IV 57,26, Channa explicitly proclaims that he will use the knife blamelessly, anupavajjam (Be, Ce, and Se: anupavajjaṃ) channo bhikkhu sattham (Be, Ce, and Se: satthaṃ) āharissati. This is preceded by Channa indicating that he has honoured the teacher, SN 35.87 at SN IV 57,23: me … satthā pariciṇṇo. The similar formulation satthā ca pariciṇṇo me at Th 178 or pariciṇṇo mayā satthā at Th 604, Th 656, Th 687, Th 792, Th 891, Th 918, Th 1016, Th 1050, Th 1088, and Th 1185, forms part of a declaration of having reached full awakening, as is the case for pariciṇṇo me bhagavā, pariciṇṇo me sugato in MN 73 at MN I 497,5. my following the Well-gone

One is now completed, being in conformity with his wishes, not contrary to his wishes. What is to be done by a disciple, I have now already done.[n.22] [23] SĀ 1266 at T II 348a7: 弟子所作, 於今已作. The closely similar expression "having done what is to be done", 所作已作, is a standard pericope in the Saṃyukta-āgama to describe the attainment of full liberation, counterpart to kataṃ karaṇīyaṃ in Pāli discourses; cf. e.g. SĀ 1 at T II 1a13 and its parallel SN 22.12 at SN III 21,14, to mention just one out of numerous occurrences.

"If other disciples are to serve the teacher, they should serve the great teacher like this, in conformity with his wishes, not contrary to his wishes. Yet now my body is sick and in pain, it is difficult to bear it up. I just wish to take a knife and kill myself, as I do not delight in a life of pain."

12. Then, in Pāvārika's Mango Grove at Nālanda, the venerable Channa took a knife and killed himself.[n.23] [24] SN 35.87 at SN IV 59,18 indicates that Channa killed himself after Sāriputta and Mahācunda had left.

13. Then, having taken care of the venerable Channa's bodily remains,[n.24] [25] SĀ 1266 at T II 348a13: 舍利; for a detailed study of this term cf. Silk 2006. the venerable Sāriputta approached the Buddha, paid respect with his head at [the Buddha's] feet, withdrew to stand to one side, and said to the Buddha:

"Blessed One, in Pāvārika's Mango Grove at Nālanda the venerable Channa has taken a knife and killed himself. How is it, Blessed One, where has the venerable Channa gone to, where has he been reborn? What is his next life?"

The Buddha said to the venerable Sāriputta: "Did he not declare of himself: 'Venerable Mahākoṭṭhita, my service to the Blessed One is now completed, my following the Well-gone One is now completed, being in conformity with his wishes, not contrary to his wishes. If others are to serve the great teacher, should they not serve him like this, in conformity with his wishes, not contrary to his wishes?'"

Then the venerable Sāriputta asked again: "Blessed One, formerly the venerable Channa had as supporters families in the brahmin village Pubbavijjhana,[n.25] [26] SĀ 1266 at T II 348a21: 先於鎮珍尼, where I assume that the correct reading should be 於先鎮珍尼, with 先 rendering pubba, and for the remaining part I conjecture vijjhana, following to some extent Akanuma 1930/1994: 512. SN 35.87 at SN IV 59,28 reads Pubbavijjhana and notes Pubbavicira as a variant, Be and Se read Pubbavijja, and Ce Pubbacīra. MN 144 at MN III 266,23 gives the name of this village as Pubbajira, which in the Pāli versions is moreover introduced as a village of the Vajjians. he was very intimate with these families and was spoken well of in these families."

The Buddha told Sāriputta: "That is so, Sāriputta. A clansman with right wisdom who is rightly and well liberated [can] have families as his supporters, be intimate with families, and be spoken well of in families. Sāriputta, I do not say that in this he has committed a serious fault.

If someone gives up this body to continue with another body, I say that this is indeed a serious fault.[n.26] [27] The term used in this context in SĀ 1266 at T II 348a26 is 過, for which Hirakawa 1997: 1156 gives among others the equivalents aparādha, avadya, duṣṭa, doṣa, and sāvadya. The Chinese rendering would not support the suggestion by Keown 1996: 23f that the expression sa-upavajja, used in the corresponding section in SN 35.87 at SN IV 60,3, means being "reborn" instead of being "blameworthy", a meaning suggested by the gloss in Ps V 82,9 and Spk II 371,19 of anupavajja as appaṭisandhika. The circumstance that according to SĀ 1266 at T II 348a27 the Buddha comments that there is "no serious fault", or more literally "no great fault", 無大過, in Channa's suicide shows a slight difference in evaluation compared to SN 35.87, in that this falls short of endorsing Channa's action as completely faultless; cf. also Delhey 2009: 89. If, [however], someone has given up this body and does not continue with another body, I do not say that this is a serious fault. There is therefore no serious fault in that he has taken a knife and killed himself in Pāvārika's Mango Grove at Nālanda."

In this way, the Blessed One declared the venerable Channa to [have reached] the supreme. [n.27] [28] Such a statement by the reciters is not found in SN 35.87. When the Buddha had spoken this discourse, the venerable Sāriputta was delighted, paid his respects, and left.

---

Study

Compared with its parallels, the Saṃyukta-āgama discourse shows a number of smaller variations. Nevertheless, its basic presentation concords with the Pāli discourses in that all versions give the impression of recording the suicide of an arahant.

This is not, however, the view of later Theravāda tradition. According to the Pāli commentary, Channa was still a worldling when he used the knife, and he became an arahant only in the short interval between his committing suicide and his passing away.[n.28] [29] Ps V 83,21 and Spk II 373,11.

Yet, if events were as the commentary suggests, one would be at a loss to understand why, in reply to Sāriputta's enquiry about Channa's rebirth, the Buddha reminds Sāriputta of Channa's earlier declaration, which in both versions involves an implicit claim to being an arahant. Such a reminder makes sense only as a way of confirming that Channa's earlier claim was justified.

According to the commentarial explanation, however, Channa's earlier claim would have been thoroughly mistaken, as he was still a worldling. In this case, Sāriputta would have been quite right in doubting the outcome of Channa's suicide. Hence the Buddha could have acknowledged the appropriateness of Sāriputta's doubts and perhaps even informed him that Channa had managed to accomplish at the last minute what he had mistakenly believed himself to have already accomplished.

This would hold true not only on the commentarial suggestion that Channa was still a worldling, but also on the assumption that he had reached the stage of a disciple in higher training (sekha). In that case, too, Sāriputta would have been right in asking about Channa's rebirth and there would have been no reason for the Buddha to remind Sāriputta of Channa's earlier declaration.

For the Pāli and Chinese versions of the present discourse to be describing the suicide of an arahant might at first sight seem to conflict with the canonical dictum that an arahant is incapable of intentionally depriving a living being of life.[n.29] [30] Cf., e.g., DN 29 at DN III 133,14, which points out that "a monk whose influxes are destroyed is incapable of intentionally depriving a living being of life", abhabbo … khīṇāsavo bhikkhu sañcicca pāṇaṃ jīvitā voropetuṃ. A similar position is taken in its parallel DĀ 17 at T I 75b14, according to which "if a monk is an arahant, with influxes destroyed, he does not do nine things. What are these nine? One: he does not kill", 若有比丘漏盡阿羅漢 … 不為九事. 云 何為九? 一者不殺. However, it is not clear whether this stipulation covers suicide, as it could be meant to cover only cases of depriving another living being of life.[n.30] [31] As Delhey 2006: 26 points out, "there seems to be no reason to presuppose any similarity of moral judgement regarding the killing of others and suicide."

According to the third pārājika rule in the Pāli Vinaya, to incite someone else to commit suicide entails loss of being in communion with the monastic community.[n.31] [32] Vin III 73,10; a rule found similarly in the other Vinayas, cf. Pachow 1955: 75f. On the significance of "not being in communion", asaṃvāsa, cf. the study by Clarke 2009b, with a critical reply in Anālayo 2012a: 418f note 42. The attempt to kill oneself falls into a different category of rules, as jumping from a cliff to kill oneself is reckoned a rather minor type of transgression, a dukkaṭa offence.[n.32] [33] Vin III 82,24. As Upasak 1975: 114 explains, a "dukkaṭa is a sort of light offence."

A close inspection of the formulation of this rule brings to light that the dukkaṭa is not for the act of attempting suicide as such, but for the act of jumping from a cliff. This was indeed the problem in the case leading to this rule, since the monk attempting suicide had jumped on someone else, causing the latter's death but surviving himself.

The next story in this part of the Pāli Vinaya applies the same ruling to the act of throwing a stone down from a cliff, with the result of unintentionally causing the death of someone below. This confirms that the suicidal intention in the first case was only incidental to the rule.[n.33] [34] This has already been pointed out by Harvey 2000/2005: 290. That is, at least from the viewpoint of the Pāli Vinaya, for a monk to attempt to commit suicide in a way that does not involve jumping down from somewhere in a way that endangers others seems not to be an infringement of his precepts.

This is in fact explicitly stated in the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, namely that suicide is not an offence.[n.34] [35] T 1435 at T XXIII 382a2: "suicide is not an offence", 自殺身無罪. The same Vinaya also takes up the case of throwing oneself down and falling on someone who then dies, with the Buddha indicating that this involves no offence, adding that in future, however, one should not kill oneself for some small matter, T 1435 at T XXIII 436c16: 無罪, 從今日莫以小因緣便自殺. Yet in other Vinayas an attempt to commit suicide or its successful completion is reckoned an offence.[n.35] [36] According to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, T 1428 at T XXII 983a14: "making an effort with the wish to kill oneself is a grave offence", 方便欲自 殺偷蘭遮 (this ruling is in relation to the above-mentioned case of jumping from a cliff and thereby unintentionally killing someone else).The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, T 1421 at T XXII 7c5, indicates that "if one kills oneself, one incurs a grave offence", 若自殺身, 得偷羅遮罪 (a ruling given in regard to a mass suicide of monks who were disgusted with their own bodies, being the counterpart to SN 54.9 at SN V 320,7 or Vin III 68,1, on which cf. Mills 1992 and Anālayo 2014g). A similar ruling is found in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, T 1458 at T XXIV 538b19; cf. also T 1459 at T XXIV 622b9. For a discussion of these and other Vinaya passages relevant to the theme of suicide cf., e.g., Demiéville 1957/1973: 349f, Koike 2001: 159–167, and Delhey 2006: 31f. In his travel records, Fǎxiǎn (法顯) reports a tale of a monk who, on the brink of committing suicide, reflects that the Blessed One has laid down a rule against killing oneself; cf. T 2085 at T LI 863a19: 世尊制戒, 不得自殺. A similar tale, although without any reference to such a rule, occurs in the travel records of Xuánzàng (玄奘); cf. T 2087 at T LI 922a5. Deeg 2005: 433 suggests that this tale refers to the Channa incident, although Delhey 2009: 86 note 57 finds this to be unlikely. The Milindapañha similarly suggests that the Buddha had laid down a precept against killing oneself,[n.36] [37] Mil 196,2: "the Blessed One laid down a training precept: monks, one should not kill oneself, whosoever would kill himself should be dealt with according to the rule", bhagavā sikkhāpadaṃ paññāpesi: na bhikkhave attānaṃ pātetabbaṃ, yo pāteyya yathādhammo kāretabbo. and the Pāli commentary on the Vinaya incident of jumping from a cliff delivers a general ban on suicide.[n.37] [38] Sp II 467,16; for a translation and discussion of this passage cf. Keown 1999: 267 and Harvey 2000/2005: 290f. The commentary on the Dhammapada then quotes the Buddha to the effect that an arahant just will not commit suicide.[n.38] [39] Dhp-a II 258,6: "those whose influxes are destroyed just do not deprive themselves of life with their own hands", khīṇāsavā nāma na sahatthā attānaṃ jīvitā voropenti.

Clearly there is some degree of ambivalence surrounding the theme of suicide committed by a monastic or an arahant. In fact, although the discourse records of Channa's suicide give a clear indication that from their perspective he was an arahant before killing himself, their narration also suggests some degree of ambiguity, evident in the description of how the two monks who had come to visit Channa try to dissuade him from his plan. Apparently Channa's wish to avoid the painful experience of his disease by killing himself aroused doubts in his visitors about his degree of detachment. Consequently, he gets a teaching on detachment from one of them, and after his death Sāriputta asks the Buddha about Channa's rebirth, clearly implying that Sāriputta thinks him still subject to being reborn.[n.39] [40] As de Silva 1987: 41 notes, "this episode clearly shows that Sāriputta, who was the most eminent disciple of the Buddha, and who was renowned for his wisdom, did not have vision into the mental make-up of a colleague regarding his emancipation."

In other Pāli discourses, the set of similes that Channa uses to describe his suffering condition occurs not only in illustrations of a sick person's condition,[n.40] [41] MN 97 at MN II 193,1, MN 143 at MN III 259,8, and AN 6.56 at AN III 379,25. but also to depict the pain experienced by the bodhisattva Gotama when he practised breath control.[n.41] [42] MN 36 at MN I 243,23 (cf. also MN 85 at MN II 93,23 and MN 100 at MN II 212,6). As in this instance the Buddha makes a point of specifying that the pain experienced by him on this occasion did not affect his mind at all,[n.42] [43] MN 36 at MN I 243,30: "such arisen painful feeling did not invade my mind and persist," evarūpā pi kho me … uppannā dukkhā vedanā cittaṃ na pariyādāya tiṭṭhati; with a similarly worded counterpart in fragment 333r6 in Liu 2010: 109: evaṃrūpā me … duḥkhāṃ tīvrāṃ kharāṃ kaṭukām amanāpāṃ vedanāṃ vedayamānasya cittaṃ [na] pariyādāya tiṣṭhati (Liu 2009: 27 notes that throughout the Sanskrit text, as in the present instance, the particle na tends to be missing). these similes need not be read as descriptions of a state of mental distress, but may just be meant to illustrate the severity of the pain that is being experienced.[n.43] [44] On the absence of grasping in the case of Channa cf. also de Silva 1996: 125.

Regarding the theme of a fully awakened one and the experience of pain, it is noteworthy that several Pāli discourses report the Buddha having back pain and asking one of his eminent disciples to deliver a discourse in his stead, as he wants to take a rest.[n.44] [45] Cf., e.g., DN 33 at DN III 209,17, MN 53 at MN I 354,24, SN 35.202 at SN IV 184,7, and AN 10.67 at AN V 123,1. This goes to show that full awakening does not imply that one feels no pain at all or will not bother to alleviate pain.

According to the commentaries, however, the real reason was that the Buddha wanted to make use of the new hall, in which he and the monks had assembled, by way of each of the four bodily postures,[n.45] [46] Ps III 28,13 and Spk III 52,14 indicate that the Buddha "wanted to make use of the assembly hall in the four postures", santhāgārasālaṃ pana catūhi (Ps: catuhi) iriyāpathehi paribhuñjitukāmo ahosi. or else that he wanted to give one of his disciples an occasion to deliver teachings.[n.46] [47] Mp V 44,18 explains that the Buddha "said this to make an occasion for the elder", therassa okāsakaraṇatthaṃ evam āha. A similar reasoning is also proposed in the Saṅghabhedavastu.[n.47] [48] The Saṅghabhedavastu, Gnoli 1977: 6,20, reports the Buddha mentioning his back pain and asking Mahāmaudgalyāyana to reply in his stead to a question on the origins of the Śākyans, which is preceded at Gnoli 1977: 6,10 by the Buddha reflecting that it would be better for him not to answer this question himself, since this may be misinterpreted by others as self-praise on his part. This gives the impression that later tradition did not feel comfortable with the idea that the Buddha handed over the teaching duty because he felt pain and wanted to take a rest.

The same tendency may lie behind the case of Channa. Perhaps later tradition thought that, had he been an arahant, he would have just put up with the pain. To rephrase the same in the terms used in the Channa-sutta and its parallel by one of Channa's visitors: how could the wish to kill oneself arise in one who has attained the total absence of dependency and agitation?

Keown (1996: 27) explains that "why the commentary should take such pains to establish that Channa was not an Arhat … is that the tradition simply found it inconceivable that an Arhat would be capable of suicide … by maintaining that Channa was unenlightened until the very end, the image of the Arhat remains untarnished."

Yet the possibility that the detachment of a fully awakened one is compatible with the rather grisly act of cutting one's own throat appears to be affirmed in the discourse versions of Channa's suicide.[n.48] [49] Thus de La Vallée Poussin 1922: 25 remarks that "the arhat … 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", cf. also id. 1919: 692 and Thakur 1963: 109. Filliozat 1963: 36: "l'attentat à sa propre vie est un péché grave, mais il n'en est pas de même de l'abandon d'un corps devenu inutile et dont on est déjà tout à fait détaché affectivement." Lamotte 1965: 157 explains that "le suicide se justifie dans la personne des Saints qui ont au préalable détruit le désir." Wayman 1982: 290 comments that "the example of Channa shows the acknowledgement of exceptional cases where suicide was justified." Wiltshire 1983: 137f concludes that "if this body has lost its essential usefulness … then the body can be relinquished … Buddhism therefore is not coterminous with stoical behavior, but recognises that there are conditions and situations too oppressive to be endured"; cf. also Becker 1990: 547. Schmithausen 2000: 37 reckons the discourse on Channa to be one among "a couple of canonical suttantas obviously reporting cases of saints committing suicide." Delhey 2009: 87 sums up that, from an early Buddhist viewpoint, "the released one … can, at least if he is gravely ill, end his life by his own hand"; cf. also Filliozat 1967: 73, Berglie and Suneson 1986: 34, and Oberlies 2006: 218.