Comments on: The Self-Immolation of a Monk: Non-Violent Resistance.

By: הובלת משרדים

הובלת משרדים — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 11:47:15 +0000

I saw about this subject several days ago in another article and the dominant facts that you bring to attention here are very alike

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:45:40 +0000

this is a great site about the new mystery religion! http://www.moneyteachers.org/Egyptian%20Religions...

By: Jim Tolstrup

Jim Tolstrup — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:49:58 +0000

Another photo of the same period shows a Vietnamese girl running down the road naked because napalm had burned her clothes (and much of her skin) off. I think this monk and others like him felt that awareness needed to be brought to the level of violence the people were living with. It's a timely discussion with Obama's remarks upon receiving the Nobel Prize that sometimes violence is justified because there is evil in the world. But who is to say who the evil one is?

By: Liz

Liz — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:59:21 +0000

I agree with Waylon here. I classify self-immolation differently than suicide. The intention is not to get oneself out of suffering (as suicide is likely to be) but to relieve the suffering of others. It is a strong, unselfish act to point to the atrocity and ultimate folly of war and killing others. If they truly felt there was no other way to send that message then they were doing the most peaceful thing they could. Sister Chan Khong (Vietnamese student of Thich Naht Hanh starting in Vietnam in the 60's), in "Learning True Love: How I Learned and Practiced Social Change in Vietnam" (1993, Parallax Press) says, "I know in the West it is hard to understand why Vietnamese burned themselves. It looked like a violent act. Please try to be in the heart and mind of the person forming such an act of great love and sacrifice. To move the hearts of the hardest men and women, you have to give a gift of great value– even your own life" (p. 39).

By: elaine

elaine — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:44:49 +0000

A violent act, regardless of intent.

By: elephantjournal

elephantjournal — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:29:11 +0000

More via FB:

Ehron
While I agree that it was effective in bringing attention to the issues, and feel that I understand the Buddha's teaching which you've quoted — I still do not agree with the idea that self-violence is the ultimate expression of non-violence. It might have been an effective form of protest at the time, but to say that it was a non-violent protest is just not true. Self-violence is violence, no matter what the intent or result.

MaryJo
interesting debate here….

Alan
Ahimsa begins with one's self!

Waylon Lewis
Great points and hard to disagree. Still, I think ahimsa begins and ends even more fundamentally, with one's intention—clearly this monk was trying in the only way he could to bring international attention to the thousands upon thousands of villages, families, children, land being destroyed by a senseless war. He did that. He clearly had zero aggression toward himself—his aim was not violence, but peace.

By: elephantjournal

elephantjournal — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:27:09 +0000

Comments on FB:
Ehron
Interesting art project. Although I can't agree that violence inflicted upon oneself is the ultimate expression of non-violence. It is still violence.

MaryJo
good point-Ehron.

Waylon Lewis
Altho, the Buddha said that if your only choice to prevent violence was to kill an aggressor and save many, that was best. From that pov the monk inspired and woke up half the world with his (in)famous expression of non-violent protest.