Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by Individual »

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

Metta
Jack
Was that a serious question? I don't think it was, but still, I thought I should ask.
mikenz66 wrote: 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).
Do you take Theravada views for granted? If you defend one view on the basis of referencing another and another, I'm not sure where to begin. I could try to be thoughtful and say something, and then you could repeat the Theravada POV, regardless of what's consistent or intelligent.

My point is that being there is no self, the idea of distinguishing here:
  • What Arahants can do
  • What non-Arahants can do
...doesn't make any sense. You're distinguishing the two, but the key distinction between them -- personhood -- has no reality upon which to base itself.

It's the same type of reasoning used to justify all sorts of terrible behaviors by religious authorities.

You say that an Arahant is incapable of committing harm. But you'd also say that killing, including suicide, is harm. Well, if an Arahant can't commit suicide, again, why is this not harm? If he carries it out, how is it not the same as any other suicide?

"Because he's an Arahant" isn't an answer. Do you follow?

Maybe an analogy would be more clear: Let's say that I say that a man named Chuck Norris can knock down tall buildings using only his fists. You might think that's absurd and ask me how that's possible. I might respond, as you did: "Because he's Chuck Norris." Because that's who he is. He's Chuck Norris. But then that doesn't answer the question because I'm referencing merely his personhood, not what exactly it is that allows such a thing to occur. What exactly is it about Chuck Norris that allows such a thing to be possible?

I might elaborate, "Because Chuck Norris is an invincible, unstoppable power in the universe". This, though, leaves you even more baffled... As equally baffled as defending Arahants' freedom to do whatever they want, because they're enlightened.

If you simply say, "Because it's him", you're appealing to a sense of authority, or in this case, an appeal to mysticism, without really justifying it -- without explaining in useful, meaningful terms, because of what you know from your experiences. If you talk about enlightenment, you're just describing an aspect of their personhood vaguely that you probably know virtually nothing about anyway and without really getting at what it is about the act itself that isn't the same.
mikenz66 wrote: Of course I've no idea of the status of Venerable Thich Quang Duc.
Yet you expressed your opinion: If he's an Arahant, he's OK. If he's not an Arahant, he goes to Hell.

While I agree with that, let's be a bit more clear... An Arahant is what they are because of wisdom, not something arbitrary like being a popular Theravadin monk or being on a list in a Theravada scripture, or whatever else.

Because of that, it's not simply that his personhood -- an irrelevant social construct -- that's the justification there. It's because his suicide was of a radically different nature than any mundane suicide by a non-Arahant. That is, he was actually thinking about what he was doing. Whereas other suicides are spontaneous and irrational, the result of craving, people who are subject to cause & effect because of ignorance, and so on, the Arahant's clear vision of the way things are allowed him to see the results of his deeds and his action was because of non-craving.

But then there's really no need to get hung up on the word "Arahant" or blinded by moral absolutism. A person who lies to a Nazi to hide Jews, who steals to feed the hungry, who kills to protect freedom, and so on, a person who violates these basic precepts, against lying, stealing, and killing, is not necessarily always subject to the same result or a negative result.

So, I think it's a bit silly to have to say: Either Thich Quang Duc was an Arahant and faced no consequence, or he was not and went to hell.

Instead, based on the Buddha's teachings, look at the intent and look at the result of it. If his intent was noble and the results for humanity were so wonderful, how could he go to hell, even if he's not an Arahant? Just because that's the rules of Theravada Buddhism that you read in a book somewhere? Come on.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19944
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by mikenz66 »

Individual wrote: So, I think it's a bit silly to have to say: Either Thich Quang Duc was an Arahant and faced no consequence, or he was not and went to hell.
I wasn't, I was trying to clarify what the Suttas and Commentary have to say, and how it might apply to this situation.
Individual wrote: Instead, based on the Buddha's teachings, look at the intent and look at the result of it. If his intent was noble and the results for humanity were so wonderful, how could he go to hell, even if he's not an Arahant? Just because that's the rules of Theravada Buddhism that you read in a book somewhere? Come on.
So there's no point in trying to understand the Suttas if they seem to contradict the way you'd like things to be?

I don't know how to resolve the difficult dilemmas that actions such as the Venerable's immolation pose. There are various ways in which one can approach this problem. One is to analyse it against the Buddha's teachings, which is what I was doing.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by BlackBird »

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

Metta
Jack
Was that a serious question? I don't think it was, but still, I thought I should ask.
Yes, it was. Pardon me for being so ignorant, but I can't recall coming across a passage in the Canon where it states that:
Individual wrote:There is no self.
I see plenty of passages relating to the doctrine of Anatta, but then Anatta is more commonly translated as "not self" because of the implications of refering to the doctrine of Anatta as "no self." Hence the question asking you to clarify your position.

MN 2: Sabbasava Sutta
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress."
- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ml#ayoniso" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Than)

An alternative translation:
"Or doubts arise about the self in the present : ßAm I, or am I not? What am I? How am I ? From where did this being come, where will it go?' To whoever thinking unwisely in this manner, one of these six views arises: To him a view arises perfect and clear, `I have a self.' Or, `I have no self.' Or, `with the self I know the self.' Or, `with the self I know the no-self.' Or, `with no-self I know the no-self.' Or this view arises to him: `This my self which speaks and feels and experiences the results of good and bad actions done here and there; it is permanent and eternal and would not change.' Bhikkhus, this is called the soul view, the thicket of speculations, the wilderness of speculations, the bond of views. O! Bhikkhus, the ordinary man bound by these views is not released from birth, decay, death, sorrow, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure, and distress. He is not released from unpleasantness, I say."
- http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ta-e1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But more importantly, the point I wish to stress, and I may be getting a head of myself here, but never the less.

MN 22: Alagaddupama Sutta
23. "You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."

24. "You may well rely, monks, on any supporting (argument) for views from the reliance on which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such supporting (argument) for views?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such supporting (argument) for views from the reliance on which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."
- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... .html#n-27" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the notes to this Sutta, Ven. Nyanaponika states:
They form the theoretical or ideological basis, or support, for the various creeds and speculative doctrines derived from them. Sub-Comy: "The view itself is a support for views; because for one with incorrect conceptions, the view will serve as a prop for his firm adherence to, and the propagation of, his ideas."
Despite what it may seem, I have no desire for an argument/debate. My point is this: "no self" can quite easily become just another subtle form of self view (an extreme example would be rebirth-deniers). From what I've read, the Buddha has advocated distance from such views, not holding on to the raft for the purpose of conjecture, nor for debate, lest one find oneself back up upon that 'near shore'.

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

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by Individual »

Nevermind.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Clueless Git
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:44 am

Re: Self-immolation: Equanimity?

Post by Clueless Git »

mikenz66 wrote:
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 ...

Metta
Mike
From my limited personal reading (Bikkhu Nanamoli(sp?) and TNH almost exclusively) that is my understanding too.

Kinda like that by definition one does not become a true Aharant untill all the roots of behaviours that could be harmfull have been removed.

Somewhere in Bikkhu Nanamoli's book "The Life of the Buddha" the full characteristics of an Aharant are cited. The only one I can actualy remember is 'the ability to see contradiction and paradox'. If anyone knows a link to respected texts that cover that then it would be most appreciated.
Post Reply