ThÃÂch Quảng ÄÂức - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This Buddhist monk burned himself alive to protest the oppression of his government. I think many of you have seen this photograph, because the band Rage Against The Machine used it for an album cover, but may not be familiar with the official story. So, I wanted to share it because I found it incredibly moving and sad. Wasn't sure which forum was best for this post, feel free to move it to the forum you deem appropriate.
His life disappeared for the blind and nothing changed, the meaningless sacrifice. "Life without hope...death without reason"
it certainly raised awareness of the religious inequality in Vietnam and helped bring it to an end. i seriously doubt that the act was one of despair, and it is obvious he had a reason worth dying for.
They are a martyr. I do not agree with the burning and or killing of themselves, but i do think it was for a cause and it was not in vain. and i love ratm
First your question: I think the question could be arranged in a better way. "Is there any scenario where someone's sacrifice, specifically meaning the cost of life, prevents the death of another person or multiple people?" The answer is unequivocally yes. You're exposed to the fact that self sacrifice(not necessarily at the cost of life) saves others-- through the many films you've seen, books you've read, and stories you've heard, or generally through your experience with other human beings. And to expand on my view: I understood your comments this way: "You should never kill yourself." I disagree with that position, because I think there exist circumstances where killing yourself can be noble. The first thoughts and emotions that I get about this monk are that his act is tragic and sad, but I don't see it as wasteful, stupid, pointless, blind, meaningless. Some of these words are words that you have used. I generally understand the following claim from the article to be true: The self-immolation is widely seen as the turning point of the Vietnamese Buddhist crisis which led to the change in regime. Nobel prizes were received by those who spread the message this monk wanted to spread, and I do think they are well deserved. I think there are less tragic methods of bringing attention to corruption, but I'm not sure if I can argue that loud appeals to emotion are not among the most effective of methods to bring attention to human suffering, which is why I disagree with you. It makes me sad, so I wanted to share the story.
I guess it is a difference of philosophy. Instead of continuing his journey of desire to save others, he chose death and ended it. Instead struggling on, he turned away from what he wanted and sacrificed everything he was yet to do and see. He cut his life short, there is nothing noble about that, but even so, I am accepting of his choices, I just wish he didn't lie to himself about it.
Man.. I so disagree with you, there are so many examples of this around the world when one small sacrifice by a single person makes a huge difference to the lives of the people around them. It is a very noble deed and he was far more aware of what his purpose in life was and what effect it could of had on people. How can you say he lied to himself? He knew exactly what he was doing. After all we are still talking about it today are we not?
I don't think you can reasonably make some of the assertions that you've made. But first: I don't agree, I think the difference is one of us fails to understand something about the action we're discussing. I concede this person could be me, but I think my reasons for using the word noble are pretty good. I wanted to clarify that we don't use words like noble, good, greedy, in wholly subjective contexts. We are either right or wrong when we use these words. You can even illustrate this. Why does this following statement seem wrong? "The rape of that little girl was praiseworthy and noble." or "You gave that starving man a sandwich? I wish you could stop being so greedy." We're actually describing something with these words, and disagreement in claims using these words is merely a failure to communicate with each other. How did he turn away from what he wanted? How do we know what he wanted? These are merely guesses we can make. If we make the wrong guess, we're at risk of being utterly wrong of our evaluations of the act. How can either of us assert that he lied to himself? Well, there either is something noble about ending his life in his circumstances, or there isn't. I covered why it is noble in the last post, and why I disagree with your position that killing yourself is always wrong. The reason why hearing about someone sacrificing their life makes me least happy is probably because the people who tend to do this are the best human beings we have on the planet, and losing them is incredibly sad. There should be an important lesson learned every time we lose a good person in the world. In general, anything dogmatic I would claim, is an unreasonable position. We can agree that many things are almost always wrong, such as murder, but failure to think of a scenario where something that is otherwise terrible could be a good idea, or the best idea, is just a symptom of imagination that could use some improvement.
Yes, but it is nothing compared to what they could have given if they had lived. Choosing death means to give up and death will never solve anything. Though, I am fine if anyone disagrees. @ArgoSG, Choosing death will always be a greedy act, but then, the nature of greed is to crave what the body and mind crave.
i think what you fail to see is that his sacrifice was part of his desire to bring change and equality. you see the situation as a cop-out when really it was a righteous act for a noble cause. it's not like he killed himself to escape a bad situation he couldn't handle. he sacrificed himself for what he considered a greater good. all in my opinion, of course.
I just wish you would look at this through the eyes of a Buddhist. Self sacrifice for the sake of others is a very noble cause but as much as I disagree with you, I accept your point of view.
I see that he either lied to you, or himself, you can ask him which. Even if his desire was for something other then himself, it is still desire. The ways of Buddhism are not mine, even though I can appreciate something, doesn't mean I have to accept it.
you are so ignorant... it has nothing to do with disagreeing or not disagreeing. it has to do with fucking logic. whats correct and what is incorrect. you didn' reply to the post the other guy posted, obviously because you can't refute what he says. because he is correct. who are YOU to say that choosing death is greedy? and to the bolded words... you contradict yourself the body and mind crave survival. we as humans may crave other things. so if death is opposing to the nature of greed, it is still greedy? Use LOGIC. PLEASE. obviously sacrifice can have a more 'magnitutious' effect then living and continuing to do what you're doing. note: i said can, not always. Sacrifice with the UTTER BELIEF that it will help the world is NOT selfish, NOT "greedy".
How so? If you say so. When you choose death you wish to wield power over life, will you take that power for yourself and still call it not greedy?
Gloom if you have nothing good to say, don't say anything at all, your responses to this are just pathetic and you should of bowed out of this conversation long ago. Just to drag it on with your one line answers give nothing to the discussion especially when it concerns the death of a person, justified or not.
I am sorry that I didn't realize you took offense from my posts, my views are my own as your views are yours. It is my view that death should never be sought after, it doesn't matter who's life it is or why, death is permanent. Well, not everyone.
All I'm saying is that if you don't understand why other people from different faiths religions and backgrounds act the way they do, even in extreme circumstances then how can we ever understand each other. Its all about trying to look at life through the perspective of other people and learning of it and not only about looking at it through the perspective we are born and educated with.