In a world of advanced medical technology, the question of when a person is truly “dead” has become ethically complex. For Buddhism, which places deep importance on intention, karma, and the continuity of consciousness, the criteria for death go beyond just biological signs. Determining whether a being is alive or dead must consider both physical and mental dimensions.
One key case that raises this issue is that of individuals in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). Such patients may have severely damaged neocortical function — rendering them unconscious and unable to respond or act — but their brain stem might still function, allowing for heartbeat, digestion, and some reflexes. They are biologically alive, yet appear mentally absent .
Buddhism does not accept that the absence of personhood or conscious awareness makes a life disposable. It holds that life has intrinsic value, whether in a human, an animal, or even a being in the womb. Even if awareness seems absent, the internal process of consciousness — especially as it prepares for death — may still be occurring in subtle ways. Buddhism acknowledges formless rebirths and meditative states in which the body and ordinary senses shut down, yet consciousness remains .
Two key criteria, according to early Buddhist texts, for defining death are the loss of vitality (āyu), heat, and consciousness (viññāṇa). These three are interdependent. The body is not considered dead merely because breathing stops or the person becomes unresponsive. For instance, in deep meditation, breath may cease, and the person may show no awareness — yet they are not dead. In such cases, the sense-organs remain clarified, and heat and life are still present .
Some modern scholars like Damien Keown and Mettānando argue that brain-stem death might be the best contemporary criterion aligned with Buddhist principles. The brain stem coordinates core life functions, and when it irreversibly ceases, the body can no longer operate as a unified, self-regulating whole. Keown suggests that at this point, consciousness also departs, and this constitutes true death — the disintegration of life as a coherent system .
However, Buddhism remains cautious. Since consciousness cannot be detected by physical tests, any claim that a person is fully devoid of awareness is speculative. The inner process of dying may still be unfolding in a way science cannot measure. Therefore, hasty judgments about death risk disrupting karmic transitions or causing unintended ethical harm .
In summary, Buddhism encourages great care and humility in determining death. It resists equating life with cognitive function alone, and warns against medical or social definitions of death that ignore the mystery and subtlety of consciousness. To respect life fully is also to respect the spiritual process of dying.