dorjeshugden.com
General Buddhism => General Buddhism => Topic started by: WisdomBeing on September 26, 2011, 09:29:20 AM
-
This news of monks self-immolating is very distressing. Is suicide allowed under the vinaya? I know this must be the last resort for monks to bring attention to their plight. Unless the monks are very attained, they would not be able to control their rebirth and wouldn't the horrendous pain they would suffer propel them to the lower realms?
One Monk Dies in Self-Immolation Protest, Other Remains Critical
http://www.thetibetpost.com/en/news/tibet/2036-one-monk-dies-in-self-immolation-protest-other-remains-critical
Monday, 26 September 2011 14:30 YC. Dhardhowa, The Tibet Post International
Dharamshala: - Another monk of Kirti Monastery reportedly died and other remains in critical condition after setting themselves on fire in Ngaba county, eastern Tibet - at least the third self-immolation death to protest against Chinese rule in Tibet and Chinese harsh treatment of the peaceful Tibetan people.
"Two young Tibetan monks burned themselves in Ngaba county of Amdho province, eastern Tibet, Lobsang Konchok aged 18, Lobsang Kalsang aged around 18 self-immolated in their protest against the Chinese regime," Tibet source said. Kalsang is a brother of Phuntsok Jarutsang who burned himself on March 16th 2011 to protest against China's rule over Tibet.
"This morning around 10:30 (Tibet local time) two more monks from Kirti Monastery set themselves on fire after a peaceful protest calling for the "return of His Holiness the Dalai Lama," "Free Tibet!" "We want Religious Freedom in Tibet" and "Long live His Holiness the Dalai Lama!," Kanyak Tsering of India based Kirti Monastery told The Tibet Post International.
"The two monks were immediately taken by the Chinese authorities after they tried to set off the flame on the two monks. One of the monks is feared to have died on the spot whereas the other remains in critical condition. It is not know where the two monks have been taken."
In the last two months,, the Chinese court in Ngaba county of eastern Tibet has sentenced several monks of Kirti Monastery to lengthy prison terms after the authorities accusing them of their involvement in late Phuntsok's death by self-immolation to protest against the Chinese rule.
Torture is an everyday reality in Tibet, is used by Chinese authorities living in Tibet as a tool against the peaceful Tibetan people particularly writers, intellectuals and Buddhist scholars, creating a climate of fear. "Several others in Ngaba county who were detained by the Chinese authorities recent months were said to be being brutally tortured, they are still being held without charge.
Last Updated ( Monday, 26 September 2011 14:44 )
-
This news of monks self-immolating is very distressing. Is suicide allowed under the vinaya? I know this must be the last resort for monks to bring attention to their plight.
Unless the monks are very attained, they would not be able to control their rebirth and wouldn't the horrendous pain they would suffer propel them to the lower realms?
Thank you WB for sharing this otherwise disturbing and distressful news with us.
I have the same questions when it comes to self-immolation indeed and I am looking forward to know what the forum people would say about this.
Your questions are:
QUESTION 1. Is suicide allowed under the vinaya?
QUESTION 2. Wouldn't the horrendous pain they would suffer propel them to the lower realms?
If I may "hijack" your topic, I have an additional question related to the topic.
Just last week I saw in a magazine the picture of a man who had set himself on fire and was engulfed with flames, this picture shocked me...
[here is the pic: http://www.google.com.my/imgres?q=greece+self-immolation&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1C1CHNV_enMY410MY410&biw=1280&bih=909&tbm=isch&tbnid=uu6qzTbiLdYKFM:&imgrefurl=http://m.spokesman.com/galleries/2011/sep/16/today-photos-sept-16/&docid=EwPhaHwxSHXHLM&w=400&h=555&ei=4rCGTrKUBuKLsAL0rKSODw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=751&vpy=104&dur=3513&hovh=265&hovw=191&tx=112&ty=153&page=1&tbnh=136&tbnw=106&start=0&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0]
My question is:
QUESTION 3. Is there a difference in between these two acts, in between
a) monks that immolate themselves to attract attention to the tibetan cause and to The Dalai Lama,
and b) a business man who is desperately broke, cannot provide anymore to his family and see no other solution than to attempt suicide in a dramatized and publicized way?
What to think?
-
Suicide is also an act of killing and will send the person to the hell realm. However, how long the person stays in the hell realm will depend on the motivation of the suicide.
The monks self immolate for the sake of the masses in hopes that the Chinese will stop their harsh treatment of the Tibetans. This selfless act will generate oceans of merits for the monks.
If we commit suicide due to our self created and self absorbed ways, then the motivation is that of selfishness. The person would stay in the hell realm for a long long time.
-
Suicide is also an act of killing and will send the person to the hell realm. However, how long the person stays in the hell realm will depend on the motivation of the suicide.
The monks self immolate for the sake of the masses in hopes that the Chinese will stop their harsh treatment of the Tibetans. This selfless act will generate oceans of merits for the monks.
If we commit suicide due to our self created and self absorbed ways, then the motivation is that of selfishness. The person would stay in the hell realm for a long long time.
how long the person stays in the hell realm will depend on the motivation of the suicide but do note that chinese will not stop harsh treatment of the tibetans even monks self immolate ~ how many case of this been happened before ? why still need to waste own life for the 'hope' that is impossible to come true ? why not continue to live on and practice / meditate ?
no offend Klein , self immolate is not selfless act. To me it is selfishness . Will you burn yourself to hope that the ban of DS practice be lifted ? Or you will help to promote Dorje Shugden in any way you can ? which one is selfless act ?
-
Suicide is also an act of killing and will send the person to the hell realm. However, how long the person stays in the hell realm will depend on the motivation of the suicide.
The monks self immolate for the sake of the masses in hopes that the Chinese will stop their harsh treatment of the Tibetans. This selfless act will generate oceans of merits for the monks.
If we commit suicide due to our self created and self absorbed ways, then the motivation is that of selfishness. The person would stay in the hell realm for a long long time.
how long the person stays in the hell realm will depend on the motivation of the suicide but do note that chinese will not stop harsh treatment of the tibetans even monks self immolate ~ how many case of this been happened before ? why still need to waste own life for the 'hope' that is impossible to come true ? why not continue to live on and practice / meditate ?
no offend Klein , self immolate is not selfless act. To me it is selfishness . Will you burn yourself to hope that the ban of DS practice be lifted ? Or you will help to promote Dorje Shugden in any way you can ? which one is selfless act ?
Muhahaha.... :D
-
Is it possible that these two monks could be fake ones send by the China Gov. ? I heard there is another group of Falun Gong do have devottees self-immolation to show protest to China Gov?
-
Thank you, hope rainbow, for question 3. I think that there is not much difference in the act of the monks and the act of the businessman, because both acts are out of desperation and desperation is a very high degree of suffering within a clouded mind.
In Buddhism, to eradicate suffering is the KEY, therefore if the purpose of self-immolation is to prevent someone else the awful act of killing you, and not to enhance their negative karma then it is an act of merit, otherwise I cannot see the real purpose of self immolation.
Live with purpose and die with purpose with true compassionate motivation. Sorry if I sound like judging monks which is not my intention as I dearly respect the Sangha.
-
This is indeed a good question. First of all, I don't think any form of killing is permitted within the Vinaya or any other part of Buddha's teachings for that matter. Killing yourself and killing others is killing and it in itself is inherently bad. However, there are cases where great Beings like one of the Buddha's previous lives had no choice but to kill another person to prevent that person from killing many other great Beings. Even the Buddha with his ocean of merits had to take a negative rebirth due to his act of killing. However, the time spent in hell was relatively brief due to this motivation.
On the difference between self-immolation and suicide due to worldly failures, I do think they are worlds apart. Self-immolation is bad but the cause for it was bigger and covers more people who are suffering as compared to a businessman who just wanted to escape responsibility of his own financial problems. It is so easy to kill oneself and forget about one's family and friends. I think they are both karmically wrong but the scale tips lower on the businessman's side because his death is all about himself. This may be subtle for many but it is not subtle to the laws of karma.
-
I totally agree with Big Uncle that any kind of killing will result in being born in the 3 lower realms. Be it suicide or self-immolation, killing of other beings. But the time spent in the lower realms will be shorter for the person who self-immolate. This is because they did it for the goodness of others so that more people will benefit from their sacrifice.
-
Suicide is also an act of killing and will send the person to the hell realm. However, how long the person stays in the hell realm will depend on the motivation of the suicide.
The monks self immolate for the sake of the masses in hopes that the Chinese will stop their harsh treatment of the Tibetans. This selfless act will generate oceans of merits for the monks.
If we commit suicide due to our self created and self absorbed ways, then the motivation is that of selfishness. The person would stay in the hell realm for a long long time.
how long the person stays in the hell realm will depend on the motivation of the suicide but do note that chinese will not stop harsh treatment of the tibetans even monks self immolate ~ how many case of this been happened before ? why still need to waste own life for the 'hope' that is impossible to come true ? why not continue to live on and practice / meditate ?
no offend Klein , self immolate is not selfless act. To me it is selfishness . Will you burn yourself to hope that the ban of DS practice be lifted ? Or you will help to promote Dorje Shugden in any way you can ? which one is selfless act ?
I like this debate very much. Which is more beneficial? To end one's precious human life for the sake of making one's stand for Dorje Shugden, upholding guru devotion? Or to use one's precious human life for educating the masses about the Dorje Shugden conflict and lifting the ban thru knowledge?
I am positive the young monks who self-immolated themselves had good intentions in mind, but their act does not accomplish much apart from temporary horror and disgust at the results the Dalai Lama and CTA have brought about, and some attention on the ban against Shugden. In the long run however, they will be forgotten and their sacrifice for nought. If they had studied, practiced and developed themselves into respected Shugden practitioners who later would bring his practice and lineage to others, that would surely bring more benefit.
Of course, our karma and merits will determine how much benefit and disbenefit we can bring, but even a simple monk who continued his practice and dedicated the merits to the lifting of the ban throughout his life would be better than a shortlived action that perhaps arose from anger? Perhaps the key is to follow the advice and example of our gurus, who would not lead us wrong.
-
I agree with Thor's view.
While the intentions of the monks are positive, the results are slight. And why do the ban a favor by having one less practitioner?
So much more good can be brought about by spreading Dorje Shugden and the benefits of its practice. If you introduce the practice correctly to someone new, you instantly win a supporter in the efforts to lift the ban.
There are some many countries in the world where the ban has no effect and yet the Shugden practice is not widespread.
-
This is indeed a good topic. Whenever I read news about monk's self immolation, I feel very sad. These monks stood for what they love so much, Tibet and religious freedom. I used to ask myself too on whether those acts are considered as committing suicide and will they go to the lower realms? And yes they do because it is still an act of suicide just like what Big Uncle said. Thank you for the explanations.
-
I like this debate very much. Which is more beneficial? To end one's precious human life for the sake of making one's stand for Dorje Shugden, upholding guru devotion? Or to use one's precious human life for educating the masses about the Dorje Shugden conflict and lifting the ban thru knowledge?
I am positive the young monks who self-immolated themselves had good intentions in mind, but their act does not accomplish much apart from temporary horror and disgust at the results the Dalai Lama and CTA have brought about, and some attention on the ban against Shugden. In the long run however, they will be forgotten and their sacrifice for nought. If they had studied, practiced and developed themselves into respected Shugden practitioners who later would bring his practice and lineage to others, that would surely bring more benefit.
Of course, our karma and merits will determine how much benefit and disbenefit we can bring, but even a simple monk who continued his practice and dedicated the merits to the lifting of the ban throughout his life would be better than a shortlived action that perhaps arose from anger? Perhaps the key is to follow the advice and example of our gurus, who would not lead us wrong.
I agree with Thor and Vajratruth.
Our motivation of self-immolation is important. Self-Immolation is killing. It is act not to be taken lightly as it has grave karmic consequence of taking a lower rebirth in hell.
We cannot even cope with a small cut on our body which gives us so much pain. Can you imagine self-immolation by burning ourselves to death like the monks did! It takes tremendous amount of courage, selflessness and a correct motivation to be able to do that. For that I salute these monks for their sacrifice for the benefit of others.
I am sure the monks who had immolated themselves had had good motivation of doing so. We have to know because if our motivation is incorrect, then we would have wasted our precious human life which could be put to better use like transforming ourselves and become enlightened and eventually to benefit others.
As we do not have the complete and perfect wisdom like Buddha Shakyamuni who killed Himself to save many others, best we refrain from killing ourselves because there are better methods within our capacities to benefit others. The best way to help others if we are lacking the wisdom is devote ourselves to our lama and help our lama perform his enlightened deeds to benefit others.
-
I like this debate very much. Which is more beneficial? To end one's precious human life for the sake of making one's stand for Dorje Shugden, upholding guru devotion? Or to use one's precious human life for educating the masses about the Dorje Shugden conflict and lifting the ban thru knowledge?
I am positive the young monks who self-immolated themselves had good intentions in mind, but their act does not accomplish much apart from temporary horror and disgust at the results the Dalai Lama and CTA have brought about, and some attention on the ban against Shugden. In the long run however, they will be forgotten and their sacrifice for nought. If they had studied, practiced and developed themselves into respected Shugden practitioners who later would bring his practice and lineage to others, that would surely bring more benefit.
Of course, our karma and merits will determine how much benefit and disbenefit we can bring, but even a simple monk who continued his practice and dedicated the merits to the lifting of the ban throughout his life would be better than a shortlived action that perhaps arose from anger? Perhaps the key is to follow the advice and example of our gurus, who would not lead us wrong.
Were these monks who self-immolated Dorje Shugden practitioners? They were willing to die for their country but i don't think they were dying for their practice. I have not come across any reports about monks who committed suicide because of the ban, though perhaps Thor is mentioning this as a hypothetical question.
I do agree though that regardless of how tough life is, surely it is better to make full use of that precious human life to gain knowledge and attainments in order to benefit others. For monks who are supposed to not exercise attachment, why be attached to a country which no longer exists? Instead, they could work with the situation, i.e. the Chinese occupation, to benefit the people – Chinese or Tibetan, because we’re supposed to have equanimity, right?
-
I like this debate very much. Which is more beneficial? To end one's precious human life for the sake of making one's stand for Dorje Shugden, upholding guru devotion? Or to use one's precious human life for educating the masses about the Dorje Shugden conflict and lifting the ban thru knowledge?
I am positive the young monks who self-immolated themselves had good intentions in mind, but their act does not accomplish much apart from temporary horror and disgust at the results the Dalai Lama and CTA have brought about, and some attention on the ban against Shugden. In the long run however, they will be forgotten and their sacrifice for nought. If they had studied, practiced and developed themselves into respected Shugden practitioners who later would bring his practice and lineage to others, that would surely bring more benefit.
Of course, our karma and merits will determine how much benefit and disbenefit we can bring, but even a simple monk who continued his practice and dedicated the merits to the lifting of the ban throughout his life would be better than a shortlived action that perhaps arose from anger? Perhaps the key is to follow the advice and example of our gurus, who would not lead us wrong.
Were these monks who self-immolated Dorje Shugden practitioners? They were willing to die for their country but i don't think they were dying for their practice. I have not come across any reports about monks who committed suicide because of the ban, though perhaps Thor is mentioning this as a hypothetical question.
I do agree though that regardless of how tough life is, surely it is better to make full use of that precious human life to gain knowledge and attainments in order to benefit others. For monks who are supposed to not exercise attachment, why be attached to a country which no longer exists? Instead, they could work with the situation, i.e. the Chinese occupation, to benefit the people – Chinese or Tibetan, because we’re supposed to have equanimity, right?
After reading all the comments from others, it makes sense that the monks should not waste their precious human life. No doubt that they are making a point to the CTA to free Tibet by self-immolation but they could have done more in helping the lift of the ban if they have not burned themselves to death. By doing so, they would be able to help more people who can contribute to the lifting of the ban.
-
Many very good points raised here. Self immolation is a powerful tool to send a message across, however like many tools in life, it may not be suitable for all occasions.
Here is what the Venerable Thich Nhat Nanh had said about the Vietnamese monk who burned himself in 1965. He too, did it for his country and countrymen. Is the current Tibetan situation similar to Vietnam's situation at that time?
"The self-burning of Vietnamese Buddhist monks in 1963 is somehow difficult for the Western Christian conscience to understand. The Press spoke then of suicide, but in the essence, it is not. It is not even a protest. What the monks said in the letters they left before burning themselves aimed only at alarming, at moving the hearts of the oppressors and at calling the attention of the world to the suffering endured then by the Vietnamese. To burn oneself by fire is to prove that what one is saying is of the utmost importance. There is nothing more painful than burning oneself. To say something while experiencing this kind of pain is to say it with the utmost of courage, frankness, determination and sincerity. During the ceremony of ordination, as practiced in the Mahayana tradition, the monk-candidate is required to burn one, or more, small spots on his body in taking the vow to observe the 250 rules of a bhikshu, to live the life of a monk, to attain enlightenment and to devote his life to the salvation of all beings. One can, of course, say these things while sitting in a comfortable armchair; but when the words are uttered while kneeling before the community of sangha and experiencing this kind of pain, they will express all the seriousness of one's heart and mind, and carry much greater weight.
The Vietnamese monk, by burning himself, say with all his strengh [sic] and determination that he can endure the greatest of sufferings to protect his people. But why does he have to burn himself to death? The difference between burning oneself and burning oneself to death is only a difference in degree, not in nature. A man who burns himself too much must die. The importance is not to take one's life, but to burn. What he really aims at is the expression of his will and determination, not death. In the Buddhist belief, life is not confined to a period of 60 or 80 or 100 years: life is eternal. Life is not confined to this body: life is universal. To express will by burning oneself, therefore, is not to commit an act of destruction but to perform an act of construction, i.e., to suffer and to die for the sake of one's people. This is not suicide. Suicide is an act of self-destruction, having as causes the following:
- lack of courage to live and to cope with difficulties
defeat by life and loss of all hope
desire for non-existence (abhava)
This self-destruction is considered by Buddhism as one of the most serious crimes. The monk who burns himself has lost neither courage nor hope; nor does he desire non-existence. On the contrary, he is very courageous and hopeful and aspires for something good in the future. He does not think that he is destroying himself; he believes in the good fruition of his act of self-sacrifice for the sake of others. Like the Buddha in one of his former lives — as told in a story of Jataka — who gave himself to a hungry lion which was about to devour her own cubs, the monk believes he is practicing the doctrine of highest compassion by sacrificing himself in order to call the attention of, and to seek help from, the people of the world.
I believe with all my heart that the monks who burned themselves did not aim at the death of the oppressors but only at a change in their policy. Their enemies are not man. They are intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship, cupidity, hatred and discrimination which lie within the heart of man. I also believe with all my being that the struggle for equality and freedom you lead in Birmingham, Alabama... is not aimed at the whites but only at intolerance, hatred and discrimination. These are real enemies of man — not man himself. In our unfortunate father land we are trying to yield desperately: do not kill man, even in man's name. Please kill the real enemies of man which are present everywhere, in our very hearts and minds.
Now in the confrontation of the big powers occurring in our country, hundreds and perhaps thousands of Vietnamese peasants and children lose their lives every day, and our land is unmercifully and tragically torn by a war which is already twenty years old. I am sure that since you have been engaged in one of the hardest struggles for equality and human rights, you are among those who understand fully, and who share with all their hearts, the indescribable suffering of the Vietnamese people. The world's greatest humanists would not remain silent. You yourself can not remain silent. America is said to have a strong religious foundation and spiritual leaders would not allow American political and economic doctrines to be deprived of the spiritual element. You cannot be silent since you have already been in action and you are in action because, in you, God is in action, too — to use Karl Barth's expression. And Albert Schweitzer, with his stress on the reverence for life and Paul Tillich with his courage to be, and thus, to love. And Niebuhr. And Mackay. And Fletcher. And Donald Harrington. All these religious humanists, and many more, are not going to favour the existence of a shame such as the one mankind has to endure in Vietnam. Recently a young Buddhist monk named Thich Giac Thanh burned himself [April 20, 1965, in Saigon] to call the attention of the world to the suffering endured by the Vietnamese, the suffering caused by this unnecessary war — and you know that war is never necessary. Another young Buddhist, a nun named Hue Thien was about to sacrifice herself in the same way and with the same intent, but her will was not fulfilled because she did not have the time to strike a match before people saw and interfered. Nobody here wants the war. What is the war for, then? And whose is the war?
Yesterday in a class meeting, a student of mine prayed: "Lord Buddha, help us to be alert to realize that we are not victims of each other. We are victims of our own ignorance and the ignorance of others. Help us to avoid engaging ourselves more in mutual slaughter because of the will of others to power and to predominance." In writing to you, as a Buddhist, I profess my faith in Love, in Communion and in the World's Humanists whose thoughts and attitude should be the guide for all human kind in finding who is the real enemy of Man.
June 1, 1965
NHAT HANH"
http://www.aavw.org/special_features/letters_thich_abstract02.html (http://www.aavw.org/special_features/letters_thich_abstract02.html)
-
Lobsang Sangay Discusses Self-Immolation Of Tibetan Buddhist Monks
DHARMSALA, India (RNS) At least three Tibetan Buddhist monks drank gasoline and set themselves ablaze in January, bringing the count of self-immolations to 15 since March 2011.
Lobsang Sangay, the prime minister of the Tibetan government-in-exile, attributes the deaths to restrictions being imposed by the Chinese government on traditional Tibetan practices.
The U.S. State Department has raised concerns over the self-immolations. However, Beijing, which regards Tibet as part of China, alleges that Tibetan exiles are encouraging the monastic community to take this extreme step, disregarding the Buddhist principle of non-violence.
Sangay, a former scholar from Harvard Law School and the political successor of the Dalai Lama, spoke about religious restrictions and self-immolation in Tibet. Some answers have been edited for length and clarity.
Q: Why are monks and nuns self-immolating in Tibet?
A: Repressive policies of China have pushed them to the brink of desperation. Members of the Communist Party of China dictate what monks and nuns should do, how they should pray, and who should be allowed into the monasteries.
Those who give up worldly life to join a monastery see their follow monks as their world, their family. When they see their associates being expelled because they refused to denounce His Holiness the Dalai Lama or to stamp on his photograph, hopelessness sinks in. When they think their sufferings are not being noted, they take such a desperate step.
Q: Does Buddhism allow self-immolation?
A: It's a complex issue. One could refer to Jataka tales, which concern the previous births of the Buddha. In one story, the Buddha, in a previous incarnation, gives up his body to feed a starving tigress and her four cubs. Some other stories also talk about self-sacrifice by the Buddha.
Although suicide is violent and prohibited in Buddhism, some Buddhists believe it depends on the motivation. If you do it out of hatred and anger, then it is negative. But if you do it for a pure cause ... it's such a complex theological issue. You can't go either way or have a definitive answer. But the action is tragic, so painful.
Q: Do you discourage monks setting themselves ablaze?
A: My stand on self immolation is the same as that of the Dalai Lama, who has always discouraged drastic actions by Tibetans. He does not even endorse hunger strikes.
Q: Can you stop the wave of self-immolations?
A: I am expected to do something about it, but it has been challenging, difficult and painful. As a human being, it is so difficult to hear someone dying for a cause. And as a Buddhist, it is even more painful.
I went to the United Stated and Europe to get statements of support so that I could send a message of hope to Tibet. I tried my best to get everything I did covered by the Tibetan media. And during my visit -- almost until the last leg of my trip -- self-immolations stopped. I thought I was able to pass on the message of hope. But when I was in London, I heard there was one more self-immolation. That dampened my mood. I cancelled all my appointments for that morning.
Q: Do you see a solution to the Tibet-China conflict in sight?
A: I do believe so. That's why I have left Harvard to be in India to lead the movement. The Tibetan struggle has to go on. Had I not moved to India, where I am living on about $300 a month, my life would have been normal and boring.
One Buddhist lesson I have learned is that one who is born has to die. That means what you do is what you leave behind. If you live for yourself, you won't make much difference. I, as a Buddhist, as a Tibetan, want to live for a cause greater than myself and my life.
-
Many very good points raised here. Self immolation is a powerful tool to send a message across, however like many tools in life, it may not be suitable for all occasions.
Here is what the Venerable Thich Nhat Nanh had said about the Vietnamese monk who burned himself in 1965. He too, did it for his country and countrymen. Is the current Tibetan situation similar to Vietnam's situation at that time?
"The self-burning of Vietnamese Buddhist monks in 1963 is somehow difficult for the Western Christian conscience to understand. The Press spoke then of suicide, but in the essence, it is not. It is not even a protest. What the monks said in the letters they left before burning themselves aimed only at alarming, at moving the hearts of the oppressors and at calling the attention of the world to the suffering endured then by the Vietnamese. To burn oneself by fire is to prove that what one is saying is of the utmost importance. There is nothing more painful than burning oneself. To say something while experiencing this kind of pain is to say it with the utmost of courage, frankness, determination and sincerity. During the ceremony of ordination, as practiced in the Mahayana tradition, the monk-candidate is required to burn one, or more, small spots on his body in taking the vow to observe the 250 rules of a bhikshu, to live the life of a monk, to attain enlightenment and to devote his life to the salvation of all beings. One can, of course, say these things while sitting in a comfortable armchair; but when the words are uttered while kneeling before the community of sangha and experiencing this kind of pain, they will express all the seriousness of one's heart and mind, and carry much greater weight.
The Vietnamese monk, by burning himself, say with all his strengh [sic] and determination that he can endure the greatest of sufferings to protect his people. But why does he have to burn himself to death? The difference between burning oneself and burning oneself to death is only a difference in degree, not in nature. A man who burns himself too much must die. The importance is not to take one's life, but to burn. What he really aims at is the expression of his will and determination, not death. In the Buddhist belief, life is not confined to a period of 60 or 80 or 100 years: life is eternal. Life is not confined to this body: life is universal. To express will by burning oneself, therefore, is not to commit an act of destruction but to perform an act of construction, i.e., to suffer and to die for the sake of one's people. This is not suicide. Suicide is an act of self-destruction, having as causes the following:
- lack of courage to live and to cope with difficulties
defeat by life and loss of all hope
desire for non-existence (abhava)
This self-destruction is considered by Buddhism as one of the most serious crimes. The monk who burns himself has lost neither courage nor hope; nor does he desire non-existence. On the contrary, he is very courageous and hopeful and aspires for something good in the future. He does not think that he is destroying himself; he believes in the good fruition of his act of self-sacrifice for the sake of others. Like the Buddha in one of his former lives — as told in a story of Jataka — who gave himself to a hungry lion which was about to devour her own cubs, the monk believes he is practicing the doctrine of highest compassion by sacrificing himself in order to call the attention of, and to seek help from, the people of the world.
I believe with all my heart that the monks who burned themselves did not aim at the death of the oppressors but only at a change in their policy. Their enemies are not man. They are intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship, cupidity, hatred and discrimination which lie within the heart of man. I also believe with all my being that the struggle for equality and freedom you lead in Birmingham, Alabama... is not aimed at the whites but only at intolerance, hatred and discrimination. These are real enemies of man — not man himself. In our unfortunate father land we are trying to yield desperately: do not kill man, even in man's name. Please kill the real enemies of man which are present everywhere, in our very hearts and minds.
Now in the confrontation of the big powers occurring in our country, hundreds and perhaps thousands of Vietnamese peasants and children lose their lives every day, and our land is unmercifully and tragically torn by a war which is already twenty years old. I am sure that since you have been engaged in one of the hardest struggles for equality and human rights, you are among those who understand fully, and who share with all their hearts, the indescribable suffering of the Vietnamese people. The world's greatest humanists would not remain silent. You yourself can not remain silent. America is said to have a strong religious foundation and spiritual leaders would not allow American political and economic doctrines to be deprived of the spiritual element. You cannot be silent since you have already been in action and you are in action because, in you, God is in action, too — to use Karl Barth's expression. And Albert Schweitzer, with his stress on the reverence for life and Paul Tillich with his courage to be, and thus, to love. And Niebuhr. And Mackay. And Fletcher. And Donald Harrington. All these religious humanists, and many more, are not going to favour the existence of a shame such as the one mankind has to endure in Vietnam. Recently a young Buddhist monk named Thich Giac Thanh burned himself [April 20, 1965, in Saigon] to call the attention of the world to the suffering endured by the Vietnamese, the suffering caused by this unnecessary war — and you know that war is never necessary. Another young Buddhist, a nun named Hue Thien was about to sacrifice herself in the same way and with the same intent, but her will was not fulfilled because she did not have the time to strike a match before people saw and interfered. Nobody here wants the war. What is the war for, then? And whose is the war?
Yesterday in a class meeting, a student of mine prayed: "Lord Buddha, help us to be alert to realize that we are not victims of each other. We are victims of our own ignorance and the ignorance of others. Help us to avoid engaging ourselves more in mutual slaughter because of the will of others to power and to predominance." In writing to you, as a Buddhist, I profess my faith in Love, in Communion and in the World's Humanists whose thoughts and attitude should be the guide for all human kind in finding who is the real enemy of Man.
June 1, 1965
NHAT HANH"
[url]http://www.aavw.org/special_features/letters_thich_abstract02.html[/url] ([url]http://www.aavw.org/special_features/letters_thich_abstract02.html[/url])
This is very helpful and informative. Thank you.
After reading all the response to this thread, I agree that different ways for different causes. To kill oneself, for a greater cause or not, must depend on the potential result. And also the opponent. Going against government, especially one like China who is so powerful and to some extent merciless, self-immolation is not the best way. To China it will only be another statistic. Plus, others will feel for the monks but for how long? Then what? Are a group of non-monks going to the same? The effect will not last to create the results.
It is hard facts that Tibet will not be free for a while longer, or even at all in this life time. How many monks will need to burn? I agree that when going against such great powers, strategy, wisdom and big financial backing are best. Self-immolation is really wasting precious life. This is very sad reality, this thread although interesting, is disheartening.
-
self immolation is done when an attained monk left for bodhi to liberate existing and other beings as the condition in its current form no longer needed. buddha shakyamuni previous life was tortured to death by ruler and in total metta. He never self immolated while suffering severe tortured.
-
Thich Nhat Hanh's explanation on self-immolation is the most acceptable and shows that this is indeed a selfless act on the part of the monks who were willing to endure so much suffering for the sake of their people. I think they had great compassion. Otherwise, they would not have the courage to sacrifice their lives for others. I hope their actions will not be in vain.
-
Here is what Ogyen Trinley Dorje, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa (barring the "Karmapa controversy") said about Tibetans (not sure if this includes monks) setting themselves on fire:
STATEMENT FROM THE GYALWANG KARMAPA, OGYEN TRINLEY DORJE.
Februrary 6, 2012 - Bodhgaya.
Reports have just emerged that three more Tibetans set themselves ablaze within a single day in eastern Tibet. This comes shortly after four Tibetans immolated themselves and others died in demonstrations in Tibet during the month of January. As tensions escalate, instead of showing concern and trying to understand the causes of the situation, the Chinese authorities respond with increasing force and oppression. Each new report of a Tibetan death brings me immense pain and sadness; three in a single day is more than the heart can bear. I pray that these sacrifices have not been in vain, but will yield a change in policy that will bring our Tibetan brothers and sisters relief.
...
In these difficult times, I urge Tibetans in Tibet: Stay true to yourselves, keep your equanimity in the face of hardship and remain focused on the long term. Always bear in mind that your lives have great value, as human beings and as Tibetans..
(source: http://kagyuoffice.org/#KarmapaBG5 (http://kagyuoffice.org/#KarmapaBG5))
Key points: Equanimity in the face of hardship, focus on long term, human life has great value.