At the time, David Halberstam wrote in The New York Times:Bhikkhu_Samahita wrote:
Power of Equanimity: Not much agitation, wavering or panic here!
Later, Thich Nhat Hanh wrote: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.
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.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.
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.