You both missing the bigger picture... sacrificing your life, for a good cause or belief is by far the most noble act and of selflessness any human can do
As I said, "Even though I can appreciate something, doesn't mean I have to accept it", I understand your positions and still believe death will never be the answer for its impact can only be negative. Life is life, embrace and treasure it.
One of the worst of our idioms, because this prevents the type of open conversation we need in order to agree on what is good. I find this comment rather bizarre. How could the monk have lied to fracturtle, and how can fracturtle ask the monk questions? Could you please explain how you even suspect that the monk lied to himself? Something is odd because you aren't providing reasons for what you're saying.
We're talking about him. A lot of people know of his story. His legacy will live on forever because of it, when he could have just died another random, old monk that nobody had heard of. Instead, his purpose in life has surpassed his life because of the way he burned out and left this life.
The monk killed himself for himself, his act was own his choice for his own beliefs, implying that it is was selfless is deceptive.
The result of this monk sacrificing himself was the beginning of the end for an oppressive regime, a change which may never have been brought about from less drastic forms of protest. This single death reduced suffering for countless others, how can this possibly be only negative? Thousands die every day from causes beyond their control and have no positive impact whatsoever. By choosing to end his life this monk improved the lives of countless others, I do not see how that is greedy.
You didn't provide us with an answer for how a dead monk lied to a poster on the forums or how that poster could ask the monk questions, I'll assume you were under the influence of some substance. On what grounds do you assert that the monk killed himself for himself? I assume you're still trying to say he was selfish. I agree that his act was his own choice, and certainly for his own beliefs, but how can you call him selfish based on that? I don't think it was entirely selfless which is why I didn't use that word, but then again nothing is totally selfless. If a good person does a good deed, they still get personal satisfaction, but certainly you wouldn't argue that the monk was doing what he did for personal satisfaction alone? If you would, I'm all ears to how you came to this conclusion.
Someone who didn't need to die still did, can you justify the death of one for the benefit of the many? How about the death of many for the benefit of one? In both cases humans still die. The act itself was the deception and just because something is selfish, doesn't mean it is negative. If his motive was not self-interest (Advancement of his own desire), then what was it? Did he choose something he didn't want? Edit: You can blame my belief on drugs if you want, but you won't be correct.
So if you gave your life to save your friends and/or family, that is greedy? This man essentially did the same thing. He gave his life to bring notice to the oppression of his people and to bring and end to it. Which he successfully did, saving the lives of many and more generations to come. I don't understand how anybody could see this as anything but noble and heroic.
Of course he didn't "need" to die, but neither did the countless others throughout the history of humanity whose lives have ended prematurely. If he did not choose to end his life in such a spectacular fashion, it is likely many more would have suffered and died before change was brought about through other means. In the context of the entire universe a single human life is utterly insignificant, so I consider the fact that the end of this one life brought about such great positive change to be admirable. In this case I consider the death of one for the benefit of many to be fully justified. If the death was not his decision it would be different, but given the way he was able burn alive in complete peace I believe this action was committed entirely through his own will to improve life for many of his fellow citizens after his death. Call it selfish and deceptive if you want, but his death improved the lives of many.
Someone who didn't need to die did die. You are right. But how is this relevant to your argument? Please explain what you are trying to claim about his act of sacrifice, because you just wrote: While previously claiming: I hope you understand my confusion here. I actually didn't place blame on anything, I suspected that you were under the influence of something because you weren't making sense when I understood you to say that a dead monk lied to a poster on this forum. I'd still like it if you elaborated on the bizarre stuff about asking the monk questions you asked that other poster, if you could, please. I think you can rule out the last question as unnecessary because it just doesn't pass the logic test. No one is really arguing that he did something he didn't want, he probably did what he thought was best, and you disagree. Do I understand you correctly? We want to know -why- you disagree with this. So far you've given us this: Several posters gave you examples of how the outcome of his death was positive, but I think there are better scenarios to explain how you are wrong in your belief that death can only be negative. Should we give more examples? We're not saying that death has no negative attributes, but this is not a black and white issue that you seem to think it is.
This man chose to give his life for a cause he had devoted that life to. Whether or not his death had any influence (it's fairly obvious that it had some impact) on the course of events following...it was the right choice for him because he truly believed that it would become a catalyst for change. On the subject of self-immolation, show me another human being that has willingly lit himself on fire and then sit there, not moving a muscle nor uttering a cry of pain or have any second thoughts. I don't believe in many things, but whatever that monk believed allowed him to do that....to me that is as close to tangible proof to something miraculous happening as we are likely to get.
@Argo, Death is when you no longer exist as you were and it is a reason for others to mourn. I don't believe that is something someone should ever celebrate or strive for and I believe life and death is not something anyone should ever try to wield power over. I don't believe that choosing death will ever be worth it no matter what it accomplishes. In retrospect though, whether it was selfish, selfless, greedy, or etc. doesn't really matter. I don't view such things as necessarily negative (Although, death I do), but what should matter to you is what you think about such things. Not me or someone else, but you. What I meant by his dishonesty, is that I believe his primary motivation was what he wanted for others. Though that is still something he wanted, not something someone else wanted. I believe that to be selfish and I wish he would have stopped thinking and imagining what others wanted, but instead have focused on what he wanted. If his desires are good, then selfishly pursuing them is not something he should have ever avoided or be ashamed of. In the end though, I believe it comes down to either he believed that his desires were selfish and knowingly pursued them while keeping his some of his views to himself and ended up ultimately deceiving those who where influenced by his sacrifice by hiding aspects of his belief. Or that he believed his desires were selfish and attempted to abandon them for others only to deceive himself when he still chose his own desire. As to why ask him, well, he is the one that knew what he believed, not you, I, or anyone else. As to the actual act, I feel that he deprived himself of himself by choosing death and I feel that he would of been happier (But, perhaps less content) to have continued living for his own dreams of a better world. I don't wish for anyone to die just to prove that the death of a human by human hands is pointless, I don't think that such an drastic measure is necessary or ever will be. That said, it is already said and done and we (Humans) should try to learn from his actions and hope to become just a little wiser. As to what I would have wished for him to do instead, is to have continued living despite everything and to have continued to persevere for his dream without ever sacrificing what he held dear. Would you agree that he held human life dear? Would you also agree that his life was equally human to any of us? To come closer to finishing this up (Sorry for rambling on ), you where right that I was under the influence of mind altering substances (Cannabis in this case) earlier in this thread (Though not at the beginning). Perhaps, "blame" was a poor word choice on my part, how about "caused"? Nevertheless, these views I hold I came upon without the help of any substances (As I was not currently using anything then) and my words still make sense to me even now when I have a clearer mind. Though, perspective is relevant to which beliefs someone holds true. If you don't share my perspective you may never believe what I am saying (Here) to be true just as I may never believe what you are saying (Here) to be true, but a difference of opinion and/or perspective doesn't make anyone greater or lesser then anyone else and a difference of opinion and/or perspective only separates us from each other when we let it (As a joined effort). Did I finally adequately express my beliefs this time? (Something that I am rather good at unintentionally doing poorly at times, perhaps getting carried away was the answer )
I'm not sure if all of these examples fit your exact criteria but here goes(Wikipedia): Czech students Jan Palach and Jan ZajÃc and Czech businessman Evžen Plocek performed self-immolation in 1969 to protest against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia of August 1968. Polish philosopher Ryszard Siwiec did the same in September 1968 in Warsaw to protest against the involvement of Polish troops in this invasion. Sándor Bauer and Marton Moyses were Hungarians who committed self-immolation as a political protest respectively against the Hungarian and Romanian communist regimes in 1969-1970. University of California, San Diego student George Winne Jr., protesting against the Vietnam War, self-immolated on May 10, 1970 at the university's Revelle Plaza before dying the next day. In 1970, Kostas Georgakis a Greek Geology student at the University of Genoa, set himself on fire in protest of the oppressive Greek military junta of 1967-1974. In 1972 Romas Kalanta, a Lithuanian dissitent, set himself on fire in protest against Soviet Union. Lutheran pastor Oskar Brüsewitz killed himself by self-immolation August 22, 1976, protesting against the East German communist regime. Crimean Tatar named Musa Mamut set himself on fire in protest against violations of the individual rights of the Crimean Tatars by the Soviet regime. He lived for five days, dying from his burns on June 28, 1978. Before dying, he is reported to have said, “I feel the pain of every Tatar who is not allowed to return to his Crimean homeland.” Artin Penik, a Turkish-Armenian set himself on fire protesting against the 1982 ASALA attack at Esenboğa International Airport in which they opened fire on travelers in a crowded waiting room. Sebastián Acevedo was a Chilean miner who committed self-immolation on November 1983 as a protest against the kidnapping of his children by the Chilean police during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet[4]. In April 1989, Taiwanese activist Cheng Nan-jung set his office on fire when police came to arrest him on the charge of insurrection.[5] The police blocked his funeral processions in the following month, at which time another activist, Chan I-hua, self-immolated in protest.[6] In 1990, Rajiv Goswami of Delhi University attempted self immolation against Prime Minister V.P. Singh's implementation of the Mandal Commission laws for Affirmative Action (reservation) recommendations. [7] [8] On April 29, 1993, Graham Bamford doused himself with gasoline and set himself on fire in front the British House of Commons in London. He was attempting to draw attention to atrocities committed during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina particularly the Ahmići massacre. Kathy Change was a West Philadelphian performance artist and activist who killed herself in an act of self-immolation on the University of Pennsylvania campus in 1996. Alfredo Ormando, an Italian writer, burned himself alive in Saint Peter's Square, in Vatican City on 13 January 1998, in protest against the Roman Catholic Church's policy of condemning homosexual acts as sinful. In April 2001, Shahraz Kayani, a Pakistani refugee settled in Australia set himself alight on the steps of Parliament House, Canberra. Dying days later in hospital, he was protesting against the refusal of the government to grant the entry of his wife and daughters into Australia, one of whom suffered from Cerebral Palsy.[9] In 2001 a group of people self-immolated in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China, known as the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. China Central Television broadcast the event nationally on Chinese new year and claimed the immolators were practitioners of the Falun Gong. Falun Gong supporters point to inconsistencies in state media reports and maintain it was setup by the Chinese government to persecute the group.[10] Malachi Ritscher was a Chicago musician and anti-war protester who committed suicide in 2006 by self-immolation as a political protest against the War in Iraq. On November 11, 2008, Liu Bai-yan self-immolated at Taipei Liberty Square in Taiwan. The 80-year-old former-Kuomintang member was unsatisfied with police mistreatment and the government's attitude during the visit by China's Chen Yunlin.[14] The year 2009 has seen several incidences of self-immolation in light of the 2009 Tamil protests, including the self-immolation of Murugathasan in front of the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) in Switzerland.[16] Self-immolation of Muthukumar, happened on January 29, 2009 when K. Muthukumar of Tamil Nadu, India self immolated or killed himself by burning to protest against the alleged killing of minority Sri Lankan Tamils in Sri Lanka as part of the Sri Lankan civil war. Before his death, he distributed a 4-page statement in Tamil language protesting the deaths of Sri Lankan Tamils. His beliefs are really important to consider, I agree. We rarely see Muslims self-immolating in protest, or Buddhists suicide bombing in protest. A look at history will find some cases of both, but they are extremely rare. Is this merely a difference in culture? I don't think so. I think the sacred texts of Buddhism are frankly challenging to hold sacred while believing that the killing of non-combatants is a good thing simultaneously. The Koran on the other hand has some advantage if you want to justify killing people who disagree with you on the nature of the books we wrote thousands of years ago, or on matters of what the creator of the universe finds as acceptable behavior. Christianity falls somewhere in between on this continuum. If you look at world religions objectively, you will find that the good people in each religion generally aren't good because their religions offer some special code of morals, because both the bible and the koran contain many verses that can be used to kill just about anyone that doesn't follow the religion. Instead, these good religious people are good because they choose to ignore the violent passages and follow the benign or kind passages. If you think about it, the alternative is that one of these religions is 'true' and the rest are false. If that were the case, we would see Muslims, or Christians, or any other religious group, being unequivocally represented as the kindest, most noble, good people on earth. This isn't the case. We have good and bad people everywhere. Food for thought.