A Tibetan Monk sets himself on fire as protest

[Kilgore Trout]

You do realize that "mental disorder" is a relatively new western concept that relies on the biomedical narrative and is therefore culturally relative yes?

Good point. Let's just make it simple and say that people who intentionally set themselves on fire are seriously messed up in the head, and it's sad and pathetic that this type of behavior is reinforced by people stupidly turning it into something admirable.

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

Non-violence and pacifism aren't the same thing. I suggest Kurlansky The History of a Dangerous Idea if you are interested in a rebuttal of that old Nazi chestnut. Although you seem to have backed yourself into a corner before you've had the chance to consider it

Hi StephenW!

I have that book also and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in non-violence.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[Marble]

It's a shame he wasn't evaluated and treated for whatever mental disorder he was suffering from.

This "mental discorder" is nothing compared to that people must suffer from who blow up themselves and a bunch of other people because they think 72 heavenly virgins are waiting for them.

I do not see what Tibetans could possibly do to make the Chinese government listen to them.
I think it was an act of despair.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think it was an act of despair.

Indeed, perhaps he could have been helped by being treated for depression. I guess we'll never know.

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

...I didn't say this monk's protest was idiotic or unjustifiable, all I did was demonstrate that it's part of a dynamic that depends on the existence of people that aren't so convinced that it's unjustifiable to use deadly force to achieve their aims...

Hi E. Nato Difficile!

While I agree that the point of the monk's self-immolation was to draw people's attention to the situation in Tibet, I'm not convinced that his intent was to incite violence. Could it be that he wanted some form of non-violent change to happen, or to raise the world's awareness closer to the level where change could occur?

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Hi E. Nato Difficile!

While I agree that the point of the monk's self-immolation was to draw people's attention to the situation in Tibet, I'm not convinced that his intent was to incite violence. Could it be that he wanted some form of non-violent change to happen, or to raise the world's awareness closer to the level where change could occur?

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

That could very well be. But if everyone were to follow his example, how much change could we expect in the situation in Tibet?

-Nato

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

And would this monk's method of ridding the world of injustice have brought about the end of the Third Reich, pray tell?

Hi E. Nato Difficile!

If the monk's actions prompted a big enough response, why couldn't non-violent methods have ended the Third Reich? Such a phenomenon is based on cooperation. If enough people refused to cooperate, Hitler would have been rendered powerless. Hitler's soldiers didn't operate in a vacuum. They were human too, with family and friends. If enough civilians refused to cooperate, then it could have spread to the military, and the Nazi machine would have ground to a halt.

I think that trying to stop violence with violence is like trying to calm the ripples in a pond by throwing more rocks into the water.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[Marble]

Indeed, perhaps he could have been helped by being treated for depression.

By whom? A Chinese army doctor?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Hi E. Nato Difficile!

If the monk's actions prompted a big enough response, why couldn't non-violent methods have ended the Third Reich? Such a phenomenon is based on cooperation. If enough people refused to cooperate, Hitler would have been rendered powerless. Hitler's soldiers didn't operate in a vacuum. They were human too, with family and friends. If enough civilians refused to cooperate, then it could have spread to the military, and the Nazi machine would have ground to a halt.

-Nato

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

That could very well be. But if everyone were to follow his example, how much change could we expect in the situation in Tibet?

-Nato

Hi Nato!

Not everyone would have to immolate themselves, but if the act sparked enough response in the international community then change could happen. The Chinese government is made of human beings, not devils. They will respond as all humans do. If enough satyagraha (truth force) is brought to bear on them they will capitulate.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

By whom? A Chinese army doctor?

I didn't say help was available. I said it's a shame that whatever mental disorder he had wasn't treated. It's an even greater shame if mental health services aren't available at all to people suffering from severe mental illnesses over there.

 

[YmirGF]

Hi E. Nato Difficile!

If the monk's actions prompted a big enough response, why couldn't non-violent methods have ended the Third Reich? Such a phenomenon is based on cooperation. If enough people refused to cooperate, Hitler would have been rendered powerless. Hitler's soldiers didn't operate in a vacuum. They were human too, with family and friends. If enough civilians refused to cooperate, then it could have spread to the military, and the Nazi machine would have ground to a halt.

I think that trying to stop violence with violence is like trying to calm the ripples in a pond by throwing more rocks into the water.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

Your post adds new meaning to the word naive.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Hi E. Nato Difficile!

If the monk's actions prompted a big enough response, why couldn't non-violent methods have ended the Third Reich? Such a phenomenon is based on cooperation. If enough people refused to cooperate, Hitler would have been rendered powerless. Hitler's soldiers didn't operate in a vacuum.

No, actually I believe they worked in concentration camps and gas chambers, killing Jews on a regular basis.

I think that trying to stop violence with violence is like trying to calm the ripples in a pond by throwing more rocks into the water.

That's saying there is nothing backing the ripples. Say a duck is thrashing around in the water and causing the ripples, then to calm the water you would get rid of the duck. Or, another person is throwing rocks in and causing ripples. Stop the cause, stop the ripples.

But, I guess treating the symptoms and not the disease could work too...

 

[YmirGF]

I didn't say help was available. I said it's a shame that whatever mental disorder he had wasn't treated. It's an even greater shame if mental health services aren't available at all to people suffering from severe mental illnesses over there.

Aside from the distinct despair of the monk who immolated himself, I am troubled by the thought that doing something like this would cause people to take much notice. I rather expect there is more interest generated on RF, in this thread, than there is in the offices of the local Communist Chinese officials in Tibet. The monk should have realized that and understood that such an act was truly pointless. China is never going to relinquish control of Tibet, at least, not in any foreseeable future. This is just reality. It doesn't matter how fair it is or how many lives the Chinese have helped or ruined. The Chinese are not going to go home and the Dalai Lama will pass into irrelevancy when the current one croaks - that is, if he is still truly relevant, even now.

I see the current Dalai Lama as more of a sham, a shadow of a somewhat mythological character whose time, station and glory have already passed. A pretender to a throne, that is no more, if you will.

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

Your post adds new meaning to the word naive.

Hi YmirGF!

This is from the paceebene.org website, Take the Vow for Nonviolence:

Q. Isn’t nonviolence too naïve and impractical of an approach to our complex world?
A. The world is a projection of our collective consciousness. If enough of us are nonviolent, the world will be more peaceful. The psychological frame of “impractical” reflects history of past failures based on limited consciousness, so by its very nature that framing cannot fathom emerging potentialities.
It is the very notion that it is a naïve and impractical idea that prevents us from creating this peaceful reality.

:flower:So while I take your comment as the greatest of praises, I cannot take credit for the idea.:flower:

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

That's saying there is nothing backing the ripples. Say a duck is thrashing around in the water and causing the ripples, then to calm the water you would get rid of the duck. Or, another person is throwing rocks in and causing ripples. Stop the cause, stop the ripples.

Hi Gjallarhorn!

You make a good point. We wouldn't throw rocks at the duck or the other person to stop the ripples, would we? But that is exactly what the violent solution would be.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Hi Gjallarhorn!

You make a good point. We wouldn't throw rocks at the duck or the other person to stop the ripples, would we? But that is exactly what the violent solution would be.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

If you are absolutely set on ending the ripples, you would take the fastest action of shooting the duck.

 

[waitasec]

remember this guy?

i think people are brought to the brink of desperation...
desperate measures are needed to be heard...not saying it was right but why does it have to go there?

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

If you are absolutely set on ending the ripples, you would take the fastest action of shooting the duck.

We would need a good retriever, but then we're back to the ripples again...

 

[Gjallarhorn]

We would need a good retriever, but then we're back to the ripples again...

I never said anything about retrieving the duck. Let it rot.