Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Buddhist Monk's self immolation

edited August 2010 in Buddhism Basics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c

I learned about this in school and never understood this. I know that he did it out of protest, and I know why he did it, I just never understood why he did it being a Buddhist. Would this act not affect his karma negatively? I know it was supposed to be more of a "sacrifice" but I see it as a type of suicide (which is definitely against Buddhist teachings). Can anyone shed some light?

Comments

  • NomaDBuddhaNomaDBuddha Scalpel wielder :) Bucharest Veteran
    edited August 2010
    I don't know what to say either. Maybe you can understand him if you put yourself in his place.
  • NomaDBuddhaNomaDBuddha Scalpel wielder :) Bucharest Veteran
    edited August 2010
    I'm not suggesting to end your life that way...all I'm saying is that you should try to understand what determined him to do such a thing.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited August 2010
    Jack Kornfield in his book says that the monk was not only protesting the war. He had gotten involved with a women and it was a forbidden relationship sort of thing. I don't think immolating yourself is enlightened activity personally.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited August 2010
    This is actually speculation....I read it somewhere.....
    I wish I could find the reference....

    But the fact that the monk actually never moved a single muscle while this was happening to him is just 'gobsmacking'....I flinch violently, if I touch a hot oven tray....!
    In any case, his motivation is one of extreme dedication. But it's not an isolated incident.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited August 2010
    Shawn M. wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c

    I learned about this in school and never understood this. I know that he did it out of protest, and I know why he did it, I just never understood why he did it being a Buddhist. Would this act not affect his karma negatively? I know it was supposed to be more of a "sacrifice" but I see it as a type of suicide (which is definitely against Buddhist teachings). Can anyone shed some light?

    There's only one person who can really answer that and he's dead.
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran
    edited August 2010
    By the mid-sixties, the Vietnam War was heating up and I was haunted by the image of Tri Quang Duc, a spry old Vietnamese monk who sometime in 1965 made a decision that would impact millions of peoples lives. Smiling cheerfully at some video camerapersons, he calmly approached a chosen site, sat down in meditation posture, doused himself with gasoline, and was suffused with roaring flames. He did not recoil in either pain or terror, and all the while a slight smile spread across his lips. After fully fifty seconds of blackening, sizzling, charring consumption by the flames, his body lost structural integrity and imploded. He had remained unmoved from the peace he knew.
    At least, this is how I remember that famous film clip. It was not just the horror of seeing a human being burned alive: it was the evident truth of his ability to burn yet remain unconcerned with the burning; it was the eerie power of seeing him choose immolation in order to bring to their senses those who were so driven by their passions they were frying children with napalm and annihilating hundreds of thousands of adults.
    Most everyone I knew was unimpressed. They thought he was either mad or drugged, but I couldn't shake the vision of it. His steps in that film were sure, not wobbly. He was an old man, and death couldn't have been far. He seemed long past fearing it; he understood it and was able to face it. Tri Quang Duc showed his true conquest of anger. He let the flames of hatred consume his body without letting his happiness be disturbed.

    -Robert Thurman, Inner Revolution

    i don't really have much to say on the topic itself. i've wondered those same things. perhaps he thought of it as a way to sacrifice himself to save others. completely devoid of an ego. i don't know... the vietnam war was truly horrible. just think of my lai... i watched a special on the my lai massacre once that involved the soldiers who committed the acts going back to vietnam to ask for forgiveness. it was really quite inspiring and really brought through the horribleness of the war. people on both sides were hurt, and not just physically.
  • edited August 2010
    Well I was definitely not thinking of doing anything similar, I was just hoping that someone could give a reason that would justify doing such a thing. The quote from Inner Revolution brings up a good point that he may have been trying to bring to light what people were doing with flamethrowers but I don't think it would have that impact on people, as he was sitting calmly, not screaming in pain. I understand that he was in a very harsh war with many more gruesome stories, I just never understood why he would think that killing himself would be the best way to protest the war.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited August 2010
    I don't think it was the 'killing himself' which he hoped would impact upon people.
    I think the very concept of someone whose whole life was dedicated to peace, compassion and meditation, dying in such a symbolic and dreadful way - was the point of the Impact....It was as anti-war a statement as a person in his position could possibly make.

    "Everywhere Man yearns for Peace, yet prepares for war".

    For 'peace-loving nations' we do seem to have some screwy ideas....
  • TandaTanda Explorer
    edited August 2010
    monk actually never moved a single muscle

    The control the monk had over his mind and body is amazing.
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited August 2010
    As soon as I stopped asking myself "Why did he do it?" and other even less answerable questions about kamma and other imponderables, I was immediately struck that there are questions coming back at me rather than satisfying my ego: how does this self-sacrifice challenge me?

    Through times in my life when I rejected all religions, mysteries and their organisations, Tri Quang Duc continued to challenge me and ask me questions:

    "Is one life, even my own, more valuable than the horrors of the war?" And I thought of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and those others who went knowingly to their deaths which would be agonising.

    "What do you imagine the bodhisatva vow really means? Is burning death really worse than the constant return to samsara?"

    "Will you ever forget this?"

    We shall never understand Tri Quang Duc's motives and I find Jack Kornfeld's reported comment (reference please) both unnecessary and disrespectful. What I do know is that his chosen method of death - and he was, as has been pointed out, not the only one - gives a clarion answer to those who say that Buddhists are disengaged.
  • StaticToyboxStaticToybox Veteran
    edited August 2010
    My understanding was that the act was in protest of, and to draw international attention to, the South Vietnam government's persecution of Buddhists.
  • edited August 2010
    I think the very concept of someone whose whole life was dedicated to peace, compassion and meditation, dying in such a symbolic and dreadful way - was the point of the Impact....It was as anti-war a statement as a person in his position could possibly make.
    This is very true. I just wish it actually made more of an impact than it did. From what I know it didn't really change the government's ways, if at all.
    "Is one life, even my own, more valuable than the horrors of the war?"
    Very good point. I, too, found that after I stop thinking about it in such a small perspective, that he has had quite an impact.
  • edited August 2010
    Shawn M. wrote: »
    I see it as a type of suicide (which is definitely against Buddhist teachings)

    I believe there isn't really such a thing as "definitely against Buddhist teachings". There are no rules, no "thou shalt nots". Only intention matters, and egoless action that comes from understanding the Whole. So sometimes a monk might have to lie, steal, or perhaps even kill! - with right intention.

    So we can't really question the act without first examining his intention. (Nor, I suppose, can we really question the impact it had, since it is still ongoing. It could inspire the awakening of a Buddha hundreds of years from now.)
  • edited August 2010
    It's part of Chinese culture.

    China and other Sinicized countries had a law against "murder by oppression". That is, if someone commited suicide as protest against mistreatment, then the incriminated party would get into serious trouble with the authorities. This law used to be exploited by legions of dissatisfied housewives as a means of getting back at their husbands and in-laws, to the horror of European visitors. In the Vietnamese mind, self-immolation is a way of expressing the depth of one's righteous and passionate sincerity in opposing some oppressive, unfair and/or brutal authority.
  • edited August 2010
    If we had such a law, then bullying rates would probably drop in modern educational institutions. Instead, suicide is simply illegal. To be honest, I don't get it at all.

    Random tangent: I mean, where is the justice in families of suicides losing certain benefits when the man is already gone? Forcing people to go on enduring horrendous conditions by holding their family members hostage rather than addressing actual problems that cause the urge to "commit" suicide is a cruel and inhuman deterrent in my book.
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    edited August 2010
    Such an act has made a large mark on the world.
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited August 2010
    Instead, suicide is simply illegal.

    ???
  • edited August 2010
    Valtiel wrote: »
    ???
    Yes, it's actually illegal here in India.

    Don't ask me.
  • edited August 2010
    kurra wrote: »
    Yes, it's actually illegal here in India.

    Don't ask me.
    How does that work? Not trying to offend you, but what stops someone? "You killed yourself?? Well then, you're going to jail mister!!!"
    haha


    Burra
    It's part of Chinese culture.

    China and other Sinicized countries had a law against "murder by oppression". That is, if someone commited suicide as protest against mistreatment, then the incriminated party would get into serious trouble with the authorities. This law used to be exploited by legions of dissatisfied housewives as a means of getting back at their husbands and in-laws, to the horror of European visitors. In the Vietnamese mind, self-immolation is a way of expressing the depth of one's righteous and passionate sincerity in opposing some oppressive, unfair and/or brutal authority.

    I was totally unaware of this. Thank you for sharing
  • StaticToyboxStaticToybox Veteran
    edited August 2010
    Shawn M. wrote: »
    How does that work? Not trying to offend you, but what stops someone? "You killed yourself?? Well then, you're going to jail mister!!!"
    haha


    Burra

    If the laws were rooted in logic there would be a lot less of them.
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited August 2010
    Both suicide and attempted suicide were against the law in England and Wales until 1961. Persons who were deemed to have attempted suicide but survived were arrested, tried and sent to prison. This refusal of the right of the individual reemains in our laws prohibiting assistance to another in their process of disposing of their own life, although we now permit the turning off of life-support and the preparation of Advanced Directives.

    The law is an old and crippled ass.

  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited August 2010
    kurra wrote: »
    Yes, it's actually illegal here in India.

    Don't ask me.

    What's the punishment for the crime?:lol:
  • edited August 2010
    Valtiel wrote: »
    What's the punishment for the crime?:lol:
    Your family loses privileges like your pension and stuff. It's perfectly horrid and inhumane. The family members are in mourning as it is, and on top of that, it's possible that they might starve to death. I think this is like a logical converse of human sacrifice or something, but people don't notice because it's not about what they do, but what they withhold from people. The UN ought to impose sanctions against us for human rights violations.

    I don't think Indians ever managed to figure out that the purpose of law and order is not to control people and force them to behave in certain ways, but to ensure their own happiness.
  • edited August 2010
    Buddhists setting themselves on fire is based upon a misinterpretation of a passage in the Lotus Sutra.
    Its really quite unfortunate.
  • edited August 2010
    Buddhists setting themselves on fire is based upon a misinterpretation of a passage in the Lotus Sutra.
    Its really quite unfortunate.
    Care to give me the passage?
  • edited August 2010
    Shawn M. wrote: »
    Care to give me the passage?
    Its Chapter 23 The Previous Lives of Medicine King Bodhisattva.
  • edited August 2010
    Its Chapter 23 The Previous Lives of Medicine King Bodhisattva.
    I doubt that was the real reason.
  • edited August 2010
    rip his head off kurra!!! shenpen's jizzin out lies like a spigot splurges out water! I'M JIZZIN OUT MOSQUITOES
    HAHA
  • edited August 2010
    kurra wrote: »
    I doubt that was the real reason.


    You would be mistaken.
    Geez, you could even just google Lotus Sutra self immolation and you would find material linking the practice of self immolation to this chapter of the LS. Its common knowledge that the practice is "justified" and influenced by this part of the LS.
    That chapter of the LS has been misinterrpreted along these lines quite often. There is a book coming out soon witrh an excellent chapter on this very subject.
  • mugzymugzy Veteran
    edited August 2010
    Its common knowledge that the practice is "justified" and influenced by this part of the LS.

    I think the response (if I'm not mistaken) was directed more towards the fact that this is all speculation. Any reason we give will be a guess, because the only person who can definitively answer is dead.
  • edited August 2010
    You would be mistaken.
    Geez, you could even just google Lotus Sutra self immolation and you would find material linking the practice of self immolation to this chapter of the LS. Its common knowledge that the practice is "justified" and influenced by this part of the LS.
    That chapter of the LS has been misinterrpreted along these lines quite often. There is a book coming out soon witrh an excellent chapter on this very subject.
    I have read the Lotus Sutra. The fact remains that self-immolation was by no means a rare phenomenon in China. The practice was used to gain sympathy in any rebellion against unjust authority by all social classes, from monks to peasants to housewives. I doubt the ancient Chinese law against muder by oppression was inspired by the Lotus Sutra either.

    It's possible that the particular monk in question misinterpreted the Lotus Sutra, I'm just saying that it's rather unlikely considering what we know of Chinese and Vietnamese culture.
Sign In or Register to comment.