Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by Jechbi »

Not to gum up the beautiful Daily Dhamma Drops thread, I'm putting this here. Today's post caught my eye for this image:
Bhikkhu_Samahita wrote:Image
Power of Equanimity: Not much agitation, wavering or panic here!
At the time, David Halberstam wrote in The New York Times:
David Halberstam wrote:I was to see that sight again, but once was enough. Flames were coming from a human being; his body was slowly withering and shriveling up, his head blackening and charring. In the air was the smell of burning human flesh; human beings burn surprisingly quickly. Behind me I could hear the sobbing of the Vietnamese who were now gathering. I was too shocked to cry, too confused to take notes or ask questions, too bewildered to even think. As he burned he never moved a muscle, never uttered a sound, his outward composure in sharp contrast to the wailing people around him.
Later, Thich Nhat Hanh wrote:
Thich Nhat Hanh wrote:The Venerable Thich Quang Duc awakened a whole population by his act of sacrifice. Many westerners did not understand the meaning of the act, and think of it as violent. On the contrary, it was a manifestation of his willingness to suffer for the sake of the enlightenment of people. In its essence it does not differ from the act of Christ in his death on the Cross. Accepting the most extreme suffering of his body, Thich Quang Duc burned himself and in so doing created the fire of consciousness and compassion in the hearts of people.
In Mahayana Buddhism, I understand that there's some sense of tradition to support this kind of act, as recounted here from the Lotus Sutra.

I'm awe-struck by the act, and it does indeed seem to be a demonstration of astonishing equanimity, in the sense of being equanimous with the sensations of searing pain and the reality of the end of this lifetime. I find it hard to believe that it is wholesome kamma to kill oneself in this way, though, even if the act demonstrates a high degree of equanimity, and even if it is done for what might be regarded as a worthy cause. Obviously there are different perspectives about this. I'm curious to hear how one would justify this act from a Theravada perspective.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by Ben »

Hi Jechbi
Thanks for raising this subject. Actually, I too was thinking of Venerable Thich Quang Duc's act today.
To be honest with you, while I revere Venerable, his self-immolation is an act that I have trouble reconciling. Whether, as you said, killing oneself in that way is wholesome and, whether Venerable's equanimity was genuine or was based on deeper and subtle aversion.
And being mere putthujanas and without knowledge of the state of mind of Venerable, it might be hard to really do anything other than rationalise the act according to our own predelictions. But its worth having a go.
metta

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by Individual »

I am not troubled at all by Thich Quang Duc's actions when you look at the broad scope of things. It helped to end oppression of Buddhists in Vietnam and helped to inspire countless people in the power of the Dhamma. I think that this mitigates the fact that suicide is generally a selfish act and that many misguided people copied him. Lastly, it's the intent that matters, and it seems doubtful that his intent was anything but noble. However, what he did was a unique case and it's really not relevant to most people. Nobody here ought to condone self-immolation for the sake of political protest or whatever else, since more compassion can be carried out through living.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by Jechbi »

Thanks, Individual and Ben. For the sake of discussion, another citation from Daily Dhamma Drops. If we regard the Venerable's act of self-immolation as a form of speech (and it does seem as if he was trying to communicate to a mass audience through this public act), then I wonder how it stacks up against the Buddha's own standards for skillful speech:
Bhikkhu_Samahita wrote:Such speech as the Perfect One knows to be untrue and incorrect,
disadvantageous, and which also is unwelcome and disagreeable to
others, that he does not speak. (No need at all...)

Such speech as the Perfect One knows to be true and correct, yet
still disadvantageous, and which also is unwelcome and disagreeable
to others, that neither does he speak. (No advantage for listener!)

Such speech as the Perfect One knows to be both true and correct,
and also advantageous, yet still unwelcome & disagreeable to others,
that speech the Perfect One waits for the right time to speak!
(Correct constructive critique should fall, when it does not hurt!)

Such speech as the Perfect One knows to be untrue and incorrect,
disadvantageous, but pleasing, agreeable and welcome to others,
that he does neither speak. (Empty and false flatter is all out...)

Such speech as the Perfect One knows to be both true and correct,
but disadvantageous, though pleasing, agreeable & welcome to others,
that he does not speak. (No speech, when no advantage for listener!)

Such speech as the Perfect One knows to be both true and correct,
advantageous, and also pleasing, agreeable and welcome, that speech
the Perfect One knows and picks the exact right time to speak.
(Making well timed maximum impact of advantage for listener!)

MN 58
The question is, who is the listener? If the whole world is watching (to use the language of the Vietnam War era), it's kind of hard to do something like this in a manner that mitigates the effects on those for whom it is disadvantageous.

Of course this is irrelevant if one does not accept the notion that a public demonstration might constitute a form of speech.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4531
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by Dan74 »

My first retreat was at the Quan Duc Temple in Fawkner, so I have a kind of a connection with this story. It terms of the resolve and equanimity displayed by Ven Quan Duc, it continues to nourish and inspire me in practice.

In terms of Theravada justification, I can only think of Jataka tales. Wasn't there one where the Buddha-to-be sacrifices his body for the emaciated tigress and her cubs?

But I agree with other posters - I do not feel qualified to judge Ven Quan Duc. If anything, I prostrate myself before his selfless action.

_/|\_
_/|\_
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by Jechbi »

Dan74 wrote:In terms of Theravada justification, I can only think of Jataka tales. Wasn't there one where the Buddha-to-be sacrifices his body for the emaciated tigress and her cubs?
I think there's another one where, as a monkey king, he uses his body to save his subjects. Maybe it's a recurring theme.
Dan74 wrote:I do not feel qualified to judge Ven Quan Duc. If anything, I prostrate myself before his selfless action.
Good point.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by Individual »

Dan74 wrote: In terms of Theravada justification, I can only think of Jataka tales
In the suttas, there are the cases of Channa and Vakkali:
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/suicide.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not identical, but similar cases.

That article above should also have references in it on the various cases where suicide is condemned in the suttas.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by mikenz66 »

In the case of Channa there was no blame because he was an Arahant at the point of death. http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2S ... ada-e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; So if Venerable Thich Quang Duc was an Arahant then there is no blame.

Besides, the case of Venerable Thich Quang Duc is different from the suicide cases in the Suttas, such as Channa's, because he didn't kill himself to end bodily suffering, but for selfless reasons.

Here's an old E-Sangha thread that might be useful: http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index. ... topic=4622" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mike
User avatar
fivebells
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:52 am

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by fivebells »

Does blame ever enter into questions of Dhamma?
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by mikenz66 »

fivebells wrote:Does blame ever enter into questions of Dhamma?
Here: http://telescopes.stardate.org/research/cosmic_rulers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; the translation is "blame", in a quote from Horner's translation:
For whoso, Saariputta, lays down one body and takes up another body, of him I say "He is to blame." But it is not so with the brother Channa. Without reproach was the knife used by the brother Channa.
My recollection is that Bhikkhu Bodhi uses "blame", but I don't have the volume with me right now.
Here: http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2S ... ada-e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; the translation is "fault".
Sāriputta, if someone gives up this body and seizes another, I say it is a fault. In the bhikkhu that fault is not apparent. Bhikkhu Channa took his life faultlessly.”
I.e. for an Arahant there is no "fault" because he will not be reborn. Take "fault" or "blame" as you will, but certainly the Buddha often says what is the correct and incorrect thing to do (if one wants liberation).

Mike
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by Individual »

mikenz66 wrote:In the case of Channa there was no blame because he was an Arahant at the point of death. http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2S ... ada-e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; So if Venerable Thich Quang Duc was an Arahant then there is no blame.
That's a pretty silly categorization, which seems similar to the Mahayana view, "Bodhisattvas can do whatever they want (ethically speaking)".

When you say, "Because he was an Arahant," we should clarify what that means. There is no self. And it's not because he was affiliated with a specific sect or merely an honorific title. To be an Arahant is to have perfectly clear insight into the way things are and, as a result, to be free from the ebb and flow of cause & effect, to not be reborn in this life as much as the next.

It's really a flaw of humanity to always have to pin things down into neat little categories to avoid thinking for ourselves. A situation like Thich Quang Duc's self-immolation might make us ask, "Is this justified or not?" There's really no yes or no answer. You could say that Arahants are always blameless, no matter what they do, but then how is this different from saying that Tibetan Lamas can use drugs, engage in financial or sexual or emotional exploitation, merely because they are "Living Buddhas"? The truth is that, because there is no self, there are no Arahants, Buddhas, etc., but merely the mental faculties that can be cultivated and are then labeled as "a special person" by those with lesser insight. But since that something special is not the person at all, it is completely misguided to think, "That person is special. He can commit suicide and face no consequence as a result."
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by BlackBird »

Individual wrote:There is no self.
Hi Individual, could you please expand on that?

Metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

The argument I have heard from the Mahayana perspective is that self-immolation can be justified also in the context of a monk who is becoming old and difficult to sustain, who would rather get on with the next life in which the bodhisattva activities can be more fruitfully performed.

Or that was how I interpreted what they were saying, anyway... and it's not related to the Thich Quang Duc incident, but would also necessitate strong equanimity.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by mikenz66 »

Individual wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:In the case of Channa there was no blame because he was an Arahant at the point of death. http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2S ... ada-e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; So if Venerable Thich Quang Duc was an Arahant then there is no blame.
That's a pretty silly categorization, which seems similar to the Mahayana view, "Bodhisattvas can do whatever they want (ethically speaking)".

I see it as the opposite. I took the Theravada view to be that that it is impossible for an Arahant to intentionally do harm, so that has nothing to do with your characterisation of justifications of actions of certain Mahayana Bodhisattvas. The point here is that an Arahant has "done what has to be done" so he will not be reborn if he ends the current life. Suicide for a non-Arahant will presumably lead to the hell realms, (though, come to think of it, as I read it a Stream Enterer cannot be reborn below the human realm).

Of course I've no idea of the status of Venerable Thich Quang Duc. I was merely discussing how the Channa case might apply to a similar situation. And, in any case, as I pointed out, in Channa's case the motivation is very different. As I understand it Venerable Thich Quang Duc did not end his life because he was sick, but out of compassion for his countrymen.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by Ben »

Hi Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:
Individual wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:In the case of Channa there was no blame because he was an Arahant at the point of death. http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2S ... ada-e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; So if Venerable Thich Quang Duc was an Arahant then there is no blame.
That's a pretty silly categorization, which seems similar to the Mahayana view, "Bodhisattvas can do whatever they want (ethically speaking)".

I see it as the opposite. I took the Theravada view to be that that it is impossible for an Arahant to intentionally do harm, so that has nothing to do with your characterisation of justifications of actions of certain Mahayana Bodhisattvas. The point here is that an Arahant has "done what has to be done" so he will not be reborn if he ends the current life. Suicide for a non-Arahant will presumably lead to the hell realms, (though, come to think of it, as I read it a Stream Enterer cannot be reborn below the human realm).
Exactly as I read it.

mikenz66 wrote:Of course I've no idea of the status of Venerable Thich Quang Duc. I was merely discussing how the Channa case might apply to a similar situation. And, in any case, as I pointed out, in Channa's case the motivation is very different. As I understand it Venerable Thich Quang Duc did not end his life because he was sick, but out of compassion for his countrymen.
I mentioned earlier that I hesitate to say that Venerable's act was one imbued with equanimity. It could be just as likely that his act may have been spawned from subtle aversion towards the social and political situation he was in. And so, I also hesitate to say that he was motivated out of compassion for his countrymen. No doubt he possessed a lot of very admirable qualities,but whether those qualities were present in abundance at time of death - that's something that i am having diddiculty reconciling.
metta

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
Post Reply