Is it possible that he was heavily drugged?
That seemed violent to me. And maybe I’m being too literal-minded, but if you’re trying to win greater freedom for your religious practices, it seems to me that immolation is not the practice that you’d want to be showcasing.
I have wondered about that myself and my guess is he wasn't. Everything I have read and seen indicates that he was in control and knew what he was doing. Check out the famous Browne photo on the Wiki page; his pose suggests supreme self-control. Besides, are there really any drugs powerful enough to mask the pain of being burnt alive?Perhaps it was an effective self-sacrifice, since his oppressors were themselves dead a few months afterward, and their eventual successors, the Communists, were wary enough to regulate Buddhism just up to the line of supression, but not over it. (Or maybe we’re simply nostalgic for the days when suicide bombers only bombed themselves).
But there is a saying (IIRC, coined by the British in response to Gandhi) that when a fanatic confronts a reasonable man, he always wins, but only just barely.
I can’t help guess how many seconds passed between the moment the Dali Lama first saw that photo, and when he dismissed the possibility that the same thing would be effective against the Red Chinese. Closer to 9 than 90?
Well in many nonviolent protests, that’s exactly what’s done- Gandhi would starve himself for his cause, others in their marches would peacefully walk up to police officers and get arrested, there were sit-ins leading to abuse and arrests, like the man walking up to the tank in China- nothing happened to him, but it was the risk he was taking. Each of these are basically points in the same tactic of non-violence protests. Just because you’re being non-violent doesn’t mean that no harm is coming to someone, but in these cases usually the harm is going only to yourself rather than towards your enemies/opposition.
Hence the line about this guy being the Rambo of nonviolent protests- I gotta agree with that one.
Those examples mentioned above are all forms of showing non-violence in your protests, this is another one- he wants to give attention to his cause and he wants to make a visible impact on the people around him. I think he pretty effectively got those goals, as it’s one of the most famous images out there.
It’s pretty much the reverse Suicide Bomber. Rather than spreading the message by going out and taking other lives for your cause, you go out there and protest simply by taking one’s own life for your cause. It’s horrific, and a heavy statement to make- especially with the implied threat/fear that there will be more of these.
None of these look like footage I seem to trecall seeing. The shot they used in the credits sequence for Watchmen (here, at about 8:11 on) resembles what I thought I’d seen. I certainly don’t recall seeing the camera bobbing around behind people, or that vertical striped pole:
And this footage is clearly of a different event:
The second youtube video clearly has the same incident at 45 seconds. You can see the vertical striped pole and the angle is the same. Later the video shows a different self-immolation with the policeman in white running around.
It is a pretty impressive stunt but I don’t really understand the logic behind non-violent protests. I think that if all of my enemies set themselves on fire, chained themselves to a post or starved themselves, it would be able the best possible outcome and I would want to encourage more of it.
It’s not clear to me. There are police running around in the second video that aren’t there in the OP’s. And the area around the monk seems to be completely deserted – the OP’s video has a great many people, who the police were holding back, and who the cameraman had a hard time seeing through. Doesn’t look like the same incident at all.
Firstly I’m tickled by the the OP name and subject connection.
Secondly I’ve always thought how this was a good indication of how Buddhists could be just as nutty as any other belief group.
Thirdly, whilst I’m an enormous fan of non-violent protest, in my book that includes intentional violence on yourself. Marching and protest with almost certain knowledge that you will be arrested / beaten up / maybe killed = brave. Self-immolation and starvation = insane (no matter how effective it is in getting you on Youtube).
Are you sure we are talking about the same video? This is the “7841” video, only for a few seconds at around 42-45. It is definitely the same incident with the white car, the striped pole, the monk seated next to the pole.
They inspire people who are a bit more willing to do violence.
Yep
The striped pole is the only thing I see in common. Where are the crowds the police were holding back (and the cameraman dodging around) on the OP’s video? Howcum cops aren’t rushing up on the OP’s video as they are on this one?
There are only 3-4 seconds from the OP video in the 7841 video so you don’t get to see everything that happens in the OP video. Plus the shot has probably been cropped so you get a narrower angle of view.
Like I said the later stuff in the 7841 video with the policemen rushing around is clearly a different incident.
Well that was weird. I watched it, and had my speakers turned off. As I went to turn them on, I thought to myself, “Explosions in the Sky would be a good soundtrack to this video.”
Er. Nevermind. Just a band that sounds like Explosions in the Sky.
I acknowledge it’s a stunt at heart, a piece of showmanship really. But I think it can be effective for two reasons.
Firstly, it implies a complete dedication to the cause. IF the monks were inclined toward taking up arms, the risk would presumably be that they might die or be tortured. By one or two guaranteeing, not risking, killing themselves in such a painful way, they establish that they are not going to be deterred by pain or death – the message effectively is “look what we are prepared to do for this cause; nothing you can do to us would be worse.” Theoretically the opposition (government in this case) has to think all the surviving monks are possibly equally dedicated to the cause; can it count on them remaining peaceful (to others)? Someone who is not deterred by pain and death is a fearsome opponent in any contest.
Secondly, such a public act completely blows the minds of spectators – look at the enormous impression this act has made on people ever since; it’s still being discussed today in terms of awe, and it’s competing with Lady Gaga for YouTube viewers. It establishes undeniable seriousness of purpose and rivets the attention of the world.
Sometime in the 70s, I had a friend tell me that he heard an interview with some monk who began the self-immolation thing, but they put out the fire. He said that he didn’t feel anything until the people put him out. No Cite. IIRC, it became a monthly thing in Vietnam during Nixon’s presidency/Vietnam latter years.
Also, in the 80s, some jerk set himself on fire to protest the Panama Canal Treaty. He was screaming “They must not sign!!” I think it was in front of the UN, or wherever the Treaty was being signed. He died, but it has been some sort of joke between my brother and I: the idea that something which affects hundreds of millions of people and dollars would be affected by some pud killing himself.
Point? Hmmm…good question.
hh
I think that they were more concerned with keeping the people, and themselves, safe from some strange person with a bunch of gasoline, and a Bic lighter.
hh