With respect I disagree with the idea that this is a non-violent act, I find such actions to be deeply disturbing. First, it is an act of violence upon the self, and secondly it is an act of violence on the people who are forced to respond to his actions. Think of the ptsd that first responders, bystanders and hospital staff have to deal with as a result of this action. They will forever be burdened with that. I feel sad for him. He sounds like he was a good man. I wish he was still here to be a blessing to his family, friends, community and the cause of saving the environment.
Thank you for making this point, Andrew. It's one that I had wanted to bring up but didn't see the right place for it in the post.
I do think that Thich Nhat Hanh and HH The Dalai Lama are approaching their definition of non-violence from a different place than the rest of us would—one in which they're looking past the duality of self and other, for example, and also in which they're able to comprehend the possibility of people witnessing the action without experiencing it as violence/ptsd-inducing. Both of these get into the meatier and more sometimes paradoxical aspects of Buddhism, which by definition are beyond logic and rational thought.
Perhaps this calls into question the very paradigm of non-violence in the first place, especially in the context of non-dualism in Buddhism.
And yet, there are Buddhist traditions in which violence is not so anathema in the way you'd imagine. Violence against the self, for example, is a thing to strive for. Throw it away! Kill it! Transcend it in order to realize your True Self. And in my own Rinzai tradition, which was at one point a sect of Japanese Zen for samurai (warrior classes) in feudal Japan, there are many nuanced ideas about violence, killing, and their inevitability in order to live. But perhaps that's for another time :-)
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I'm glad you're posting again. Your articles always inspire and challenge me. Please know that the following comments come from a place of profound respect. I hope I don’t hurt anyone by my comments. I apologize if I do.
I would argue that the violence of self-immolation is the point of the act. It is a purposefully shocking action. I also think it’s inherently self-focused as it does not take into consideration the profound harm it does to the people who are forced to see and deal with it. I see no compassion in it (for both the individual and witness) as the individual is violently destroying themselves, and doing profound emotional and spiritual harm to the witnesses and first responders.
I found your comments on Buddhist themes of self-annihilation interesting, but I would suggest that such themes refer to the destruction of the false self/ego, not the destruction of the actual self. I have studied Yoshinkan Aikido for years and have some familiarity with the Samurai ethos. While there is much to be admired in the Samurai tradition. I know the Samurai were ready to die at a moment’s notice. That being said, the Samurai also treated the lives of others very cheaply as well (especially those of a lower caste). I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t a connection between this and some strands of Buddhist thought and self-annihilation.
It seems to me that if the environment has inherent worth that must be preserved, reverenced and valued (which it does), then that applies equally to the life of Mr. Bruce as he too was part of the environment both natural and human. It's difficult to affirm life whilst destroying it; even if that life is one’s own.
I can't help but see this act as a tragedy. His last act was one of violence upon himself and those who witnessed it. I felt only sadness and pity when I read his story. Like I said, I would much rather have Mr. Bruce here. I wish his soul and his family every good thing, but I also hope that anyone who reads about his act seeks help for suicidal ideation and doesn't try to spiritualize an act that does profound harm to the self and others.
With respect I disagree with the idea that this is a non-violent act, I find such actions to be deeply disturbing. First, it is an act of violence upon the self, and secondly it is an act of violence on the people who are forced to respond to his actions. Think of the ptsd that first responders, bystanders and hospital staff have to deal with as a result of this action. They will forever be burdened with that. I feel sad for him. He sounds like he was a good man. I wish he was still here to be a blessing to his family, friends, community and the cause of saving the environment.
Thank you for making this point, Andrew. It's one that I had wanted to bring up but didn't see the right place for it in the post.
I do think that Thich Nhat Hanh and HH The Dalai Lama are approaching their definition of non-violence from a different place than the rest of us would—one in which they're looking past the duality of self and other, for example, and also in which they're able to comprehend the possibility of people witnessing the action without experiencing it as violence/ptsd-inducing. Both of these get into the meatier and more sometimes paradoxical aspects of Buddhism, which by definition are beyond logic and rational thought.
Perhaps this calls into question the very paradigm of non-violence in the first place, especially in the context of non-dualism in Buddhism.
And yet, there are Buddhist traditions in which violence is not so anathema in the way you'd imagine. Violence against the self, for example, is a thing to strive for. Throw it away! Kill it! Transcend it in order to realize your True Self. And in my own Rinzai tradition, which was at one point a sect of Japanese Zen for samurai (warrior classes) in feudal Japan, there are many nuanced ideas about violence, killing, and their inevitability in order to live. But perhaps that's for another time :-)
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I'm glad you're posting again. Your articles always inspire and challenge me. Please know that the following comments come from a place of profound respect. I hope I don’t hurt anyone by my comments. I apologize if I do.
I would argue that the violence of self-immolation is the point of the act. It is a purposefully shocking action. I also think it’s inherently self-focused as it does not take into consideration the profound harm it does to the people who are forced to see and deal with it. I see no compassion in it (for both the individual and witness) as the individual is violently destroying themselves, and doing profound emotional and spiritual harm to the witnesses and first responders.
I found your comments on Buddhist themes of self-annihilation interesting, but I would suggest that such themes refer to the destruction of the false self/ego, not the destruction of the actual self. I have studied Yoshinkan Aikido for years and have some familiarity with the Samurai ethos. While there is much to be admired in the Samurai tradition. I know the Samurai were ready to die at a moment’s notice. That being said, the Samurai also treated the lives of others very cheaply as well (especially those of a lower caste). I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t a connection between this and some strands of Buddhist thought and self-annihilation.
It seems to me that if the environment has inherent worth that must be preserved, reverenced and valued (which it does), then that applies equally to the life of Mr. Bruce as he too was part of the environment both natural and human. It's difficult to affirm life whilst destroying it; even if that life is one’s own.
I can't help but see this act as a tragedy. His last act was one of violence upon himself and those who witnessed it. I felt only sadness and pity when I read his story. Like I said, I would much rather have Mr. Bruce here. I wish his soul and his family every good thing, but I also hope that anyone who reads about his act seeks help for suicidal ideation and doesn't try to spiritualize an act that does profound harm to the self and others.
Thank you, Andrew. No offense taken or harm done. I really appreciate the respectful and honest discourse!