[Buddha-l] 3 Tibetan Monks Sentenced for assistingwith self-immolation

[Dan Lusthaus]

Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] 3 Tibetan Monks Sentenced for assistingwith 
self-immolation


>> From the LATimes.
>> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-china-monks-20110831,0,
>> 5947771.story
>>
>> Pro-Tibetan groups are criticizing the Chinese for condemning three monks
>> who helped a 16 yr old monk burn himself (he died the next day). Am I 
>> alone
>> in finding all this side-taking ethically complex?
>> Dan
>
> Dan, could you be more specific about the ethical complexity? 
> Self-immolation
> is rather questionable, in the Buddhist tradition, so why not blame 
> enablers?
> -- 
> Andy Stroble

Andy, I am being deliberately non-specific in order to solicit opinions.

Supporters of Tibet will likely have a knee-jerk reaction siding with the 
Tibetan "cause" and automatically denigrating the Chinese actions. But how 
sound or ethical is that?

The opinion you express -- enablers of immolation are complicit, and thus 
prosecuting them may have some justification -- is one option. One could 
even make the case stronger, given the particulars of this particular case:

1. The dead person is a very young monk, only 16.
2. There are all the complexities of "assisted suicide" involved -- since 
they doused him with kerosene, possibly lit him up, and when he didn't die 
from the immolation, kept him hidden and away from medical care until he 
died the next day. If one knows anything about burn victims, there initially 
is shock, which blocks most of the pain. Once the shock subsides, the pain 
is excruciating, a 15 on a scale of 10. He likely burned his lungs, eyes, 
etc., so would have had trouble breathing, and may have been comatose until 
dying (if he was lucky).
3. At some point it may be hard to even call this "self-" immolation.

On the other side, the prosecution is clearly part of a Chinese suppression 
of Tibetan resistance and protest, and thus can also be characterized as 
"persecution," not just "prosecution."

On the other side, the Tibetans and their supporters are insisting on the 
right to kill -- to inflict himsa (harm) on self and others. Unlike the 
parrot seeking to escape the falcon's clutches, this is harder to defend as 
"self-defense."

The veneration bestowed on these "martyrs" for the cause by the community 
has eerie echoes of the way martyrdom as a vaunted and rewarded life-choice 
produces an endless supply of jihadi suicide bombers.

More arguments might be offered on each side. Anyone else care to weigh in? 
It is "complex," not a simple matter of loyalty or picking sides.

Dan