[Buddha-l] Extreme practice

[Zelders.YH]

Dan Lusthaus wrote :

> > But please explain, Dan, why do you speak of 'we' ?
>
>This is followed with some purile options. The simple answer is the "we"
>means the Americans, of which I am one. Since I am old enough to have
>protested the war in those days, and even debated my high school principle
>on the war (we were supposed to debate among students; the teacher found my
>arguments so devastating that she called in the principle, who tried to
>defend the war, but to no avail; back then I didn't think much of it, but
>looking back after years of being a teacher, I now suspect that the teacher
>herself must have had some sort of similar, probably friendly debate with
>the principle, and was trying to use me as a proxy to get a few shots in on
>him; or maybe not), I was a draft counselor, I have nothing to be personally
>ashamed of in all that. Yet I still use the "we." Dismiss that as merely the
>rhetorical stylings of common English, or, if one prefers to make noisy
>cases where there are none, let's flip this around and question citizens --
>especially of democracies -- who dissociate themselves from all
>responsibilty for what their country does. Whose responsibility is it, if
>not theirs? I wanted the war to end not because some "they" was conducting
>it, but because "we" were conducting it. Like Richard, I fought the draft
>system that would have sent us there.

I am a citizen of a small Western European state that supported US 
politics regarding Vietnam blindly. 'America' , that is : the US of 
A, and it's allies share the responsibility for what happemed  over 
there in those days. So you and I and Richard would all belong to the 
same 'we' if I would believe in collective identities. I don't. (Oh 
well, I'm sure we're all hominids).
I am also old enough to have protested the war in those days, and 
that is what I did, puerile behaviour, no doubt.

>That, as a gesture, Thich Quang Duc's immolation was a memorable event is
>obvious. We are talking about it. That it was, either then or now, a clear
>political statement is as obviously not the case, since there is no clear
>consensus among us of exactly what he was protesting (was it protesting the
>banning Buddhist holidays, etc., or the rounding up of Buddhist leaders on
>the run, or something else, or all of the above? Did he ignite himself or
>have helpers?). It was an inchoate gesture.

The only existing eyewitness report in english states that he ignited 
himself after having been doused with gasoline by a fellow monk.

Thich Quang Duc left a letter in which he himself elucidated his 
intentions. Here's a translation of that text : "Before closing my 
eyes and moving towards the vision of the Buddha [he did a Pure Land 
practice], I respectfully plead to President Ngo Dinh Diem to take a 
mind of compassion towards the people of the nation and implement 
religious equality to maintain the strength of the homeland 
eternally. I call the venerables, reverends, members of the sangha 
and the lay Buddhists to organise in solidarity to make sacrifices to 
protect Buddhism."

I'm certain that many Vietnamese understood quite clearly what 
exactly he was trying to accomplish. Outsiders will have to do a 
little reading. Calling his act of self-immolation an inchoate 
gesture is what I call a chutzpah. Sad.

Herman