self immolation in tibet

7/28/2019 Self Immolation in Tibet

1/74

The Practice of Self-Immolation by Buddhist Protestors:

Burning for Modern Tibet

Ryann Garcia

Study of Religion 199: Senior Thesis

June 7, 2013


2/74

2

Study of Religion Honors Thesis Application

Name: Ryann Garcia

Faculty Advisor: Natasha Heller

Thesis Advisor: Natasha Heller

Title of Thesis Project:The Practice of Self-Immolation by Buddhist

Protestors: Burning for Modern Tibet

Comments from Thesis Advisor:

Ms. Garcia's senior thesis analyzes the meaning of self-immolation in

contemporary Tibet. She does a thorough job of contextualizing this

practice within Buddhist history and within contemporary media. Although

historically Buddhist monks have treated self-immolation as a devotional

act, the practice also had a long history of as a means to protest the actions

of rulers or governments. With careful use of secondary sources, Ms. Garcia

traces this history from early Chinese Buddhist examples to self-immolation

in the Vietnam War. She then turns to Tibetan cases, and considers how the

reception of self-immolation is shaped by who performs it, how it is carriedout, and where it is performed. She also examines a wide range of

statements about the ethics and efficacy of self-immolation. She concludes

that it is an oversimplification to treat Tibet self-immolations solely as a

political act. This is a carefully researched and well-written senior thesis.

Final Grade: A

Written Paper:

Excellent__X___

Great_____

Good_______


3/74

3

Needs improvement______Abstract: Is it possible for an individual to undergo self-inflicted bodily destruction in

order to appeal to the masses in a way that would constitute change? Or would this action

go completely unnoticed and arouse no public interest? Self-immolation, an extreme act

so often associated with political protest, has been a subject of intense culturalcontroversy. This act has been seen throughout the history of Chinese Buddhism to be

performed as a religious ritual, yet more recently there has been an extreme rise of

occurrences among Tibetan Buddhists. Though originally used as a means of spiritualenlightenment, recent episodes in the history of self-immolation show that the motivation

for this extreme act has shifted. As Tibetan Buddhists struggle to maintain their culture

and attempt to halt Chinese rule within their society, the practice of self-immolation hasbeen embraced as form of public protest, and has been viewed as a political tool. A

question many have asked is whether or not self-immolation can be considered violent,

for these practices elicit appalled reactions. The objective here is to explore the reasons

why self-immolation has transformed throughout history, and whether it even has moved

completely beyond the sphere religion into politics.1

I find it is essential to explore theincidents of self-immolation throughout Chinas history to modern Tibet in order to view

the transformation of the motives of practitioners and the reception of their audiences. Iwill show that this practice has not completely moved beyond its Buddhist foundations,

for even though its modern purpose lies in the political sphere, the essential religious

ideology of nonviolence remains the force of power.

On March 26, 2012, the cries of Tibetan exiles resonated loudly as Jampa Yeshi

ran through the streets of New Delhi on fire. Yeshi was one of many Tibetans who had

gathered in New Delhi during a conference at the European Parliament where Chinese

president Hu Jintao was in attendance ("Tibet in Flames Conference 2012). The exiles

of Tibet were actively protesting Chinese rule prior to Hus arrival when Yeshi set

himself on fire, making a powerful statement as he ran through the crowds. Yeshi

transformed himself into a blazing emblem of political resistance as he darted by stunned

1 The view that self-immolation is used solely as a political act is illustrated within numerous articles, such

as The Ultimate Protest: Women Self-Immolate in Tibet,

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/ultimate-protest-women-self-immolate-tibet, where Gloria

Reviera asserts that the reasoning for these womens immolations is purely political. There are also

numerous amounts of articles that simply portray Tibetan immolators only as protestors, and fail to

consider religious motivations. For an example, see, Self-immolation in Tibet: The Burning Issue,

http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2012/12/self-immolation-tibet.


4/74

4

and horrified protestors who carried signs with statements such as Tibet Is Burning and

Tibet Is Not Part of China (Gottipati 2012). His burning body flailed through the

demonstration causing a terrifying scene for eyewitnesses. When he finally began to lose

momentum, surrounding protestors encircled Yeshi and rapidly worked to put the flames

out (GokhaCreed 2012). Ryan Craggs ofThe Huffington Postreports that Yeshi was

taken to a hospital and later died, suffering from burns over 98% of his body ("Jampa

Yeshi, Tibetan Exile" 2012). Craggs observed that this Tibetans actions did not go

ignored around the world. Images of his scorched body reached the media, allowing his

personal demonstration to horrify viewers even in the West ("Jampa Yeshi, Tibetan

Exile" 2012). His self-immolation became a unique image of the protests that Tibetans

have been carrying out against Chinese control over their former country. The fact that

the majority of those who are self-immolating are not religious clergy but rather

laypeople implies that there is a sense of growing urgency among Tibetan protestors.

Throughout history, this act has typically been performed by advanced members of the

religious community as an intensive religious practice. The self-immolations by the

common Tibetans imply that they are now acting as leaders trying to defend their culture

in the face of oppression. Though many Tibetan exiles have used self-immolation as a

means of political protest, there remain mixed feelings about the nature of this act.

Though Buddhism is often revered around the world as a religion that generally upholds

the tenet of nonviolence, many feel that self-immolation itself is an act of violence, one

that may in fact promote further violence. Therefore it is necessary to examine how this

practice is rooted in Buddhist scriptures without violent intentions.


5/74

5

Tibet has no long-standing history of self-immolation2, as either as a religious or

political tool. On the surface, the practice of self-immolation is well known for provoking

reactions of shock and fright. As the number of Tibetan self-immolations continues to

grow, Chinese authorities have laid much blame for what they exaggerate and refer to as

terrorist incitement fomented acts on the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, the religious leader of

the exiled Tibetans (Gottipati 2012). However, the Dalai Lama himself has expressed

sadness and shock over these acts: "Self-immolation is indeed a tragic and extreme act,

one that should be avoided at all costs. But there are moments when this ultimate gesture,

that of offering one's body as a torch of compassion to dissipate darkness and ignorance,

is the only possible recourse (Buffetrille 2012, 2). As a leader of a people whose

national religion is Buddhism, the Dalai Lama implies that this act of protest, though

appalling as it is, has grounding in religious tradition. Despite the fact that the ancient

practice of self-immolation has been seen throughout the history of Buddhism, it has

become a rising issue of controversy in modern Tibet. Most cases of individual self-

immolation show that these extreme actions are being taken as a means of political

protest, such as the case of Jampa Yeshi. However, when looking at where this practice

originally takes its roots, we see that it had in fact established itself within the sphere of

religion rather than politics. The first instance of self-immolation is seen in theLotus

Sutra one of the most popular and significant scriptures of Mahayana Buddhism

(Watson 1993, 280-9). So how did a practice that has religious roots in Chinese

Buddhism make its way to modern day Tibet as a means of political protest that seeks to

defend a culture?

2 Buddhist scholar James Benn makes it clear that self-immolation in its strictest definition actually refers

to self-sacrifice, and thus inBurning for the Buddha he studies an array of self-immolations, from

burning ones fingers to auto-cremation (Benn 2007, 8). For this study, I wish to make it clear that when I

use the term self-immolation that I am strictly referring to auto-cremation: setting oneself on fire.


6/74

6

The issue at hand is a conflict so large that it has fragmented and physically torn

apart an entire population. The plains of Tibet are protected by the Himalayas, which acts

as a natural barrier to the outside world. The Tibetans who resided there were known for

a society that fused politics with their national religion of Tibetan Buddhism. The debate

over the control of Tibet has been a major issue for some time now, going as far back as

the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries (Goldstein 2012, 84). During this time

the Qing Dynasty sought to rule over Tibet; however, in the 19 th century this relationship

eventually turned into a loose protectorate status, allowing Tibet to become self-

governing (Goldstein 2007, 186-7). They were permitted to maintain their own

independent culture, have their own language, government, and army while providing no

taxes to China (Goldstein 2012, 84). However, in 1912 the overthrow of the Qing

Dynasty allowed the Tibetans to force out Chinese rule in their region, thus declaring

themselves an autonomous nation (Goldstein 1989, xix).

Tensions arose as China continued to view Tibet as one of their subjects, feeding

off of the fact that their independent legal status was technically undefined. In 1949, the

Peoples Republic of China was founded under communist rule, establishing a stronger

military power within China (Goldstein 2012, 84). Though the PRC wished to enforce

their control over the region of Tibet, they initially sought to do so by legal authority,

seeking to establish a formal contract with the Dalai Lama. Conflicts arose as Tibet

refused to recognize Chinese authority, and tensions reached an extreme in the 1950s

when the PRC invaded Tibet by force (84). The Dalai Lama, unaided by the surrounding

countries from which he had requested help, was pressured to accept the Seventeen Point

Agreement with China in 1951. It legally stated that Tibet would recognize Chinese


7/74

7

authority, yet at the same time it seemingly allowed the Dalai Lama and his government

to manage their region (84-5). Though the agreement seemed to have given the Tibetans

some of their power back, it has become an issue of controversy in that the Dalai Lama

has repeatedly repudiated the legality of this document, knowing that it did not serve the

Tibetans best interests. Due to the unstable nature of actually implementing the

Seventeen Point Agreement, conflict between China and the Tibetans worsened as the

Chinese continued to occupy the Tibetan region for eight years (Goldstein 2012, 85).

Tibetans became frustrated and emotionally disturbed as they witnessed massive

destructions of their monasteries and temples. The occupation of the Chinese Peoples

Liberation Army built up a great deal of internal tension which led to the Tibetan

Uprising in 1959. Tibetan troops attempted to overthrow Chinese occupiers, but were

unsuccessful due to their undersized army and lack of force against China. This led to

exodus of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama and approximately 80,000 Tibetans to Dharmasala,

India (84-5). The Fourteenth Dalai Lama, though officially stepping down from his

political position in May of 2011, continues to stand at the head of the Tibetan people,

and he has become a major figure in the conflict between his nation and the Peoples

Republic of China (Dickyi et al. 2012).Though he has long been admired for his non-

violent and peacemaking attitude, he has been openly detested by the Chinese

government for his unrelenting willingness to stand up for the autonomy of the Tibetan

people.

During the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), the destruction of religious symbols

and the continuous attempts to degrade Tibetan culture greatly encouraged thousands of

more Tibetans to flee. China continued to enforce its policies upon Tibet by arms up until


8/74

8

the 1980s, when tensions had again peaked and Tibetans began to fight back. This would

come to include the practice of self-immolation, a religious ritual that takes its roots in

Chinese Buddhism. The first modern example of self-immolation in Tibet occurred in

1998 when Thupten Ngodup, an ex-Buddhist monk from Tibet, self-immolated in Delhi,

India. He intended to take part in a hunger strike along with the Tibetan Youth Congress

"to give his life to bring about peace and fulfillment to his unhappy people" (Buffetrille

2012, 1). However, Indian police halted the strikes, preventing Ngodup from publicly

fasting till death. Consequently, he made the decision to set himself on fire instead (1).

The rising occurrences of self-immolations since then have become an intense topic of

controversy. Since Ngodups incident, more than a hundred Tibetans have also self-

immolated, and the number continues to grow. The graphic nature of the act puts Tibetan

leaders in a difficult position as they try to defend, explain, or justify the causes behind

self-immolation. The Chinese government has continued to use these demonstrations as

grounds for criticizing the rule and influence of the Dalai Lama upon the Tibetans. This is

due to the fact that his stance on self-immolations remains neutral and he refuses to

openly condemn these actions (7). However, because the Dalai Lama continues to

promote a nonviolent compromise towards Tibetan autonomy, many exiles themselves

have voiced open disagreement with his methods, claiming they are not powerful enough

to provide Tibet with the independence it deserves (Goldstein 2012, 92). Tibetan exiles

continue to fight Chinese rule with both physical and rhetorical demonstrations. Thus, the

practice of self-immolation is largely subject to scrutiny by the public and the media, for

the reason that many cannot comprehend why anyone would perform such an extreme

action. Though this act had been seen throughout the history of Chinese Buddhism as a


9/74

9

religious tool for individual enlightenment, recent events show that there may be new

motivations for this extreme act. As Tibetan Buddhists struggle to uphold their culture

and challenge Chinese rule within their society, the practice of self-immolation has been

adopted as a form of public protest, where individuals utilize this act to make a political

statement. In this way we can see how the motives behind self-immolation have shifted to

focus on defending cultural freedoms. Therefore, these acts can be viewed rather as

cultural self-immolations than strictly political demonstrations.

The practice of self-immolation has often incited horrendous reactions, which has

led critics and scholars to ask the question: is this Tibetan resistance truly non-violent?

Does the act contradict the essential Buddhist ideology of nonviolence and therefore

work against itself? As we try to place a religious act under the category of either violent

or nonviolent, we must first define these terms. Bruce Lincoln acknowledges that

virtually all religions allow for the righteous use of violence under certain circumstances

(e.g., self defense), the definitions of which have proven conveniently elastic (Lincoln

1998, 65). Therefore, as an important objective of this study, we must look at how

violence is defined in general terms before being able to understand whether or not self-

immolation within Tibetan Buddhism can be considered violent or nonviolent. It is

crucial to take into account that our established concept of violence may already be

biased by Western influences. Many in the West tend to become desensitized to violence

due to its widespread presence in the media. When it comes to religious violence, news

outlets frequently portray that these acts are characteristically carried out by individuals

who wish to claim religious superiority. The modern issue of religious violence in the

West always seem to concern conflict in the Middle East and notions of suicide


10/74

10

bombers and terrorists. However, there are varying definitions of violence and

nonviolence. Merriam-Webster defines violence as exertion of physical force so as to

injure or abuse (Violence 2013). Yet this definition does not take into account that

violence can be achieved through nonphysical means. This is an important aspect

particularly of self-immolation, for the act was originally meant to evoke nonphysical

spiritual changes, but had to be accomplished through physical action upon oneself. That

is, ceremoniously setting oneself aflame was established in scripture as a ritual that would

transform a mortal being into an enlightened Buddha. We will observe later though that

this act does inflict injury that is not physical upon spectators, families, and those who are

left to bear the increased pressure cause by this outcry. However, there are still other

common examples where violence can affect others in a nonphysical way. In an effort not

to exaggerate the use of the phrase nonphysical violence, this study will look

specifically at that which includes offensive language or imagery, such as threats and

intimidation, as well as familial neglect.

Merriam-Webster gives another definition that states that violence is intense,

turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force (Violence 2013). This seems

almost too specific, in that violence, often associated with anger and rage, could actually

be performed to inspire peace and unity. Nonetheless, we cannot deny that violence does

in fact always commit some type of destruction in any case. Similarly, in The

Encyclopedia of Religion and Politics, James Aho defines violence as the use of

physical force to injure or kill another being (1998, 770). Again, this definition is far too

narrow for our study, for it is restricted only to physical injuries. However, Aho does

point out the unique relations between violence, religion, and politics. He claims that


11/74

11

religions are a social factor that legitimizes certain types of violence by mystifying

them, [t]hat is, they take responsibility out of human hands and attribute it to

supernatural forces or beings (771). Those who commit violence for the sake of a

religious belief or cause often turn to this explanation as a means of justifying their

actions. We will later apply this theory to the study of self-immolation to decide if this

fits this unique circumstance.

For an important viewpoint on how the dictionary definition of violence can be

misconstrued, we can look to professor of sociology Mary Jackman who states:

...violence is commonly conceivedboth by scholars and the lay publicasconsisting of actions that flagrantly offend the moral, social, and legal precepts

governing day-to-day life. Our understanding of violence is infused with moraljudgments. We have all learned that violence refers to willfully malicious acts of

harm that are socially conspicuous and deviant. Such behaviors are presumed to

arouse widespread fear and repudiation. (Jackman 2001, 437-8)

She confronts the issue that many of our preconceived notions of violence imply that

these acts are performed with specific motives: those that are malicious. However,

Jackman also provides an alternative definition of violence that relies on the nature of

inflicted injuries. Violence, by her definition, consists of actions that inflict, threaten,

or cause injury. Injuries may be corporal, psychological, material, or social. Actions may

be corporal, written, or verbal (443). This definition is important in that it does not take

physical violence as the only type, and even more importantly it implies that violence is

not always malicious. This designation of violence also pertains to the performer of

action as well as the one receiving itviolence can be self-inflicted. For that reason,

when we define whether an action is violent, we must reflect on its context, motives, and

the reactions that it provokes. On a more general level, John D. Carlson emphasizes:


12/74

12

violence is a feature of the human condition, found in all peoples. All manners

and forms of human communities have been parties to violence, and they have

invoked economic, religious, tribal, ethnic, and political rationales (or somecombination thereof) to justify their actions. Violence and war neither began nor

ended with the secular nation-state. As such, violence is not essentially religious,

secular, or even political: it is human. (Carlson 2011, 13-4)

Though Carlson stresses that violence is a condition of human life, he also recognizes the

other vital factors that play a role in provoking violence. This study will therefore take

into account that violence is a essentially a part of human nature, but will focus on

looking at violence through the scope of religion.

Unfortunately, Jackmans definition of violence is not specifically related to

religion in any way. To define a religious practice as violent or nonviolent by a definition

that does not take into account religious context would be inequitable. Samuel Klausners

entry on Violence inEncyclopedia of Religion frames the term as something that may

be religious in form, an end in itself, or a dramatic symbol (Klausner 1987, 268). He

goes on to say that violence can therefore be associated with religion, politics, and even

economics (268). He bases this on the fact that [r]eligion, when not overly rationalized,

engenders an energy that may be experienced as despair or as enthusiasm (268). We see

then that this energy, when taken to extreme negativity, is able to produce a violent

outcome. Klausner notes that positive enthusiasm occurs when religion promotes hope

and celebration (268). He also states some clear examples of negative energy which

leads to victim-defined violence, such as riot, assassination, massacre, terrorism, torture,

and assault (268). An important paradox that Klausner points out is that [i]deologically,

religions invoke violence and also demand peace (268). As this study progresses, it

should become apparent that this statement is central to the controversy over self-

immolations in Tibet. How is it that a religion that promotes nonviolence also able to


13/74

13

legitimize an act that can be construed as violent? This brings us to the matter laid out by

Klausner that when it comes to social violence, it is not violent as such, but the

legitimation of violence [that] is the issue (271). This will be the guideline when looking

at the practice of self-immolation in modern Tibet, for it will force us to take into account

not only the definition of violence but rather how the legitimization of that violence is

perceived among different cultures. It is vital then to consider all human aspects of the

practice of self-immolation when we try to categorize it as violent or non-violent.

A practice that is closely related to religion and often times religious violence is

that of martyrdom. Charles Selengut defines a martyr as one who offers his individual

corporeal existence for God, but his or her action is enmeshed in an elaborate theological

and sociological framework of meaning and expectations (Selengut 2011, 95). Merriam-

Webster more generally defines a martyr as a person who voluntarily suffers death as

the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion and also as a person

who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle

(Martyr 2013). The prior definition given by Merriam-Webster directly implies that the

consequence of the martyrs action is death, and that it is religiously motivated. The latter

definition states that only something of great value is being sacrificed, but it does not

always include the sacrifice of ones life. I believe that both of these definitions, as well

as that of Selenguts, are all relevant to religious martyrdom for the following reasons.

Selenguts definition takes into account the fact that an act of martyrdom is typically part

of a complicated network of ideals that may fall outside of the cultural norm. The actions

of a martyr then, may be problematic to those who do not correctly understand the

meaning and expectations behind the framework. The first definition by Merriam-


14/74

14

Webster reinforces the idea that martyrdom is used as a response to religious oppression.

The second is less associated with religion, stating that acts of martyrdom are used to

stand up for a specific principle. Therefore, the Merriam-Webster and Selengut

definitions provide the three concepts that we will take into account when looking at

whether or not one who has self-immolated can be deemed a martyr. In response to

Selenguts definition, it would be useful then for us to look into the context of specific

cases of self-immolations. Therefore, when defining self-immolation as violent or non-

violent, or a self-immolator as a martyr, it will be important to consider all aspects of

their action, including motives, the physical action itself, and how others received it.

This study will investigate how the intentions behind self-immolation have

transformed, and to understand how this practice fits within the sphere of religion or

politics. I will therefore begin by taking a look at the establishment of self-immolation

within Buddhism, as well as its examples in medieval China to show the transformation

of the act. From there, I will focus in on the first modern example of self-immolation

that of Thich Quang Duc during the Vietnam War. This will allow us to look at how the

West was introduced to this act and how it was perceived. I will then discuss the context

of the self-immolations that are occurring in modern Tibet, and then will move on to

observe how this practice is being received among various audiences. The study

concludes with an application of the terms that we have briefly discussed, such as

violent and martyr, as they are put into use in both English and Tibetan when

discussing modern self-immolators. Ultimately, this study intends to show that this

practice has not moved entirely beyond its religious associations; even though it is

currently being used by Tibetans as a sociopolitical tool, it remains grounded in religious


15/74

15

ideology. The most fundamental topic I intend to show how a religious practice can be

transformed and framed to fit a modern setting which bears no resemblance to its original

establishment. I aim to explore these controversial questions as well as shed light on the

ways in which self-immolation has created a resurgence of Tibetan nationalism. Despite

the fact that these demonstrations can act as political catalysts to boost morale among

Tibetan activists, my study shows that self-immolations should be seen essentially as a

religious act that does not intend to produce violence, but rather compassion and spiritual

enlightenment.

A Brief History of the Origin and Practice of Self-Immolation in China

This study was motivated by the fact that self-immolation in Tibet is considered a

modern phenomenon by many scholars. In order to understand why the practice of self-

immolation has become accepted by many as a useful tool in making a political

statement, we must first turn our attention towards its origins. Buddhism itself takes its

roots in India around the sixth of fifth century BCE through its founder Siddhartha

Gautama. He was the man who became known as the Buddha and thus became an

exemplary model of how one could attain nirvana (spiritual awakening). There exists

numerous Indian stories of his deedsspecifically the ways in which he gave his body as

a gift to others. Two of these sourcesthejtaka and avadna tales3do not include any

examples of self-immolation by setting oneself on fire. This first text that self-immolation

3 Thejtaka and avadna tales are part of ancient Indian literature that tell the stories about the past lives of

the Buddha, both as a human and animal.


16/74

16

appears in is actually a famous Buddhist scripture known as theLotus Sutra.4 The story

of the Bodhisattva Medicine King is portrayed in chapter twenty-three of the sutra.

Thereupon he swallowed various perfumesAnointing his body with fragrant oil,

he appeared before the Buddha Sun Moon Pure Bright Virtue, wrapped his bodyin heavenly jeweled robes, poured fragrant oil over his head and, calling on his

transcendental powers, set fire to his bodyThe Buddhas in these worlds

simultaneously spoke out in praise, saying: Among all donations, this is themost highly prized, for one is offering the Dharma to the Thus Come Ones!

(Watson 1993, 282)

By the third century BCE, the story of the Medicine King had been well-established

through this Mahayana scripture. This enigmatic text had an impact on its audience,

namely the monks and nuns who were left trying to incorporate how the scripture was to

be translated in their real lives. The sutra explains in detailed text the ways in which the

Medicine King had ceremoniously prepared for this ritual so that it would be considered a

bodily offering for the benefit of both himself and many others. Many audiences have

interpreted this act as a means of fiery transformation. To them, he was not committing

suicide but was rather evolving into the higher state of being known as Buddhahood. This

practice was therefore seen as spiritual means to achieve nirvana by offering material

wealth in the form of his physical body for merit, which could be shared with others

according to the Mahayana tradition. Benn explains that in China several of the feelings

people may have about self-immolation, even in modern times, can be traced back to this

passage (Benn 2007, 57).

The fact that self-immolation takes its origins in a text like theLotus Sutra leaves

many followers of the tradition with an ambiguous view on the foundations of this

practice. On one hand, many take this as literal word, and are thus able to justify this

4 According to Burton Watson, the true origins of theLotus Sutra are unknown. It was probably translated

into Sanskrit from an original unknown language, and then was later translated into Chinese. The scripture

was certainly in existence by 255 CE, and the version which I am using has been translated from

Kumarajivas Chinese version in 406 (1993, ix).


17/74

17

practice. On the other, many audiences have understood this to be a metaphorical text.

Jane Ardley makes the distinction that whether or not we agree with the use of this

practiceas many in the West find it horrifyingthose who perform it have found a

rational and legitimate argument by using a literal reading of the Lotus Sutra (Watson

2000, 28). To better understand how self-immolation has been received and played a part

in Chinas history, we must briefly look over the course of the records of this practice,

both by practitioners and by biographers.

Much of the evidence that we have for medieval Chinese self-immolations comes

from the biographies known as theBiographies of Eminent Monks, or the genre of

Gaoseng zhuan. The first recorded self-immolation in China was committed by a monk

named Fayu who lived ca. 352-396 (Benn 2007, 33). The way in which he carried out his

self-immolation was to be repeated in the same manner by many who followed. He was a

part of the monastic group and is said to have aspired to be like the Medicine King (33).

Futhermore, he took it upon himself to first go to the political leader of his timeYao Xu

to inform him of his plans to burn his body (34). This was unusual by contemporary

standards. Just as others would do after him, Fayu continued on with his plans to self-

immolate even after being dissuaded by his political leader (34). Mirroring the acts of the

Medicine King, Fayu ingested incense, wrapped his body in linen, and recited scripture

(34). Benn suggests that Fayus self-immolation was characteristic of the standard way in

which this practice would be carried out during this age. In the fifth and sixth centuries,

the involvement of the monastic community (who were full of grief and admiration), as

well as the ceremonial preparation of the body, the chanting of scripture, and finally the

public nature of this event were all commonly seen in the biographies that we have of the


18/74

18

self-immolators of this time (34). As we trace the biographies of those who have

immolated, we can see just how these rituals changed in accordance to their historical

settings.

Many decades after Fayus self-immolation in 451, a monk named Huishao

planned an even more miraculous display. He took advantage of weight of this act,

holding a remarkably lavish ceremony to entice crowds and their donations (Benn 2007,

35). Audience members were attracted to these events not only because of the physical

extravagance, but also because there was the belief that self-immolators would generate

large amounts of merit (35). Huishaos immolation was also connected with theLotus

Sutra, sources say that he recited The Original Acts of the Medicine King as he burned

(35). In an earlier incident that took place in 438, the medieval Chinese monk Sengyu

made a similar connection to the Medicine King; Sengyus biography gives us a better

understanding for this individuals motives to self-immolate. Seventeen years before he

committed this act, he had formed the perception that rebirth in the lower realms (hell

dweller, hungry ghost, or animal) could only be prevented by ridding oneself of the

physical body. This, along with his admiration for the Medicine King, inspired him to

build up a pyre, say goodbye to his community, and self-immolate in a calm and

composed manner (36). Again, the community responded with much admiration, for

they all made prostrations, touching their heads to the ground, as they wished to make

karmic connections with him (36).

As the course of these immolations continued, we see from the biographies that

they seemed to become more calculated. Monks would plan these ceremonies for years,

even physically preparing themselves by changing to a strict diet. Self-immolations began


19/74

19

to draw larger crowds, and those who performed the act would take into consideration the

ways in which they could make their display more spectacular and unique. Some planned

their immolations on specific Buddhist holidays, and some even abandoned the

connection of this act to the Medicine King, making for a more individually-motivated

deed (Benn 2007, 40). A specific example can be found with the case of the monk

Sengyai (ca. 488-559), who planned to self-immolate during the ghost festival so that

he may take advantage of the large crowds (90-1). There were in fact immolations that

were done privately as seen with the case of Tanhong in 455. He alone gathered firewood

and built a pyre in the secluded mountains near Xianshan si (41). His case depicts an

occurrence where the first attempt at self-immolation was halted by his disciples, and

thus he survived, only to complete his goal a month later (42). Tanhongs immolation

was therefore not intended to be a performance for others but rather an individual

offering. The private nature of Tanhongs immolation underscores the fact that this

practice was still being utilized as an individual religious experience. As the

performances of self-immolations were beginning to vary among the monks, nuns too

were motivated to complete this religious act. In 493, two nuns self-immolated together

in the same location as a type of combined offering. This incident was followed years

later by a sister of one of the nuns, who also burned her body in the same way (44). This

is particularly notable, for these types of connected immolations and joint offerings are

commonly seen in the incidents of self-immolation in modern Tibet.

Huijiao, the biographer who compiled the Gaoseng zhuan (Biographies of

Eminent Monks), uses this volume of work to illustrate his own specific moral views

about self-immolations in medieval China. His biographies show an admiration for these


20/74

20

practitioners as well as a further attempt to assist their cause by connecting this practice

back to scripture. Benn explains that Huijaos perceives the effort of longevity to be

selfish, notably in that it does nothing for others (Benn 2007, 50). He contrasts this with

self-immolators, whose charity arises from the fact that they have realized that the body

is merely illusory, a temporary stopping place insamsara (50). In this way, self-

immolators are depicted as selfless and extremely generous (50). Huijao also makes a

point that it is only advanced bodhisattvas who should be committing this act. Benn

claims that he makes a clear distinction between bodhisattvas who appear on earth in

human form and ordinary humans (51). The idea that a self-immolator should be

someone of higher spiritual authority is not specific to Huijao or even medieval Chinese

audiences. When we move into the modern sphere of Buddhism in Tibet, we will find

that these views still exist. However, in the chapter The Original Acts of the Medicine

King, the Buddha comments on the acts of the Medicine King and claims that self-

immolation is not restricted to advanced bodhisattvas, but rather any person who wishes

to attain nirvana may carry out this practice (61). There are even few accounts of

laypeople who decided to burn themselves as well.5 We are therefore presented with

various opinions on how to legitimize the type of person who should be performing this

act. Audiences had various ways of interpreting whether or not self-immolations were

justifiable. One way to determine this legitimacy was if the self-immolation had created

relicssomething more characteristic to Chinese immolation during these times. These

objects, which were supposedly left behind by those who had burned their bodies and

generally cremated, were seen as legitimating objects for self-immolators: without them,

5 See Benn 2007, 76.


21/74

21

auto-cremation might be nothing more than a bizarre form of suicide (61).6 Many

accounts describe extraordinary signs that accompanied self-immolation. They were seen

as signs from nature, and numerous people interpreted these signs as another

legitimizing factor for self-immolation. One such example can be found in the biography

of Sengming (fl. ca. 502-519), whose self-immolation was accompanied with healing,

spontaneously blooming flowers, and a moving statue (73).

Politics also played a key role in self-immolations in China. In many of the prior

cases there is evidence for a relationship and cooperation between an emperor or ruler

and the self-immolator. Many times, a monk would either inform a ruler or request

permission from him to commit this act. During the sixth and seventh centuries, self-

immolation seemed to take on a new role: challenging political authority. In response to

the rise of the new emperors such as Zhou Wudi (r.560-578) and Taizong (r. 626-649),

many people of the religious community contemplated how to deal with their anti-

Buddhist rule (Benn 2007, 80). The biographer Daoxuan (596-667) even fled into the

Zhongnan mountains to avoid persecution by the emperor (80). He became a vital figure

in recording the connections between the self-immolations of this time and the emperors

who were oppressive towards Buddhists. He tells the story of monks who utilized self-

immolation as a tool to confront the politics of the time. For example, a man named Puji

(d. 581)the disciple of a monk who had immolatedretreated to the mountains. There

he made a vow that reveals how self-immolation could be understood as a potential

mechanism for political change (80). His vow declared that if Buddhism survived this

oppressive time, he would burn his body as an offering (80). His actions portray that by

this time, Buddhists were not afraid to use their bodies to promote change, especially

6 Relics included objects such as unburned tongues, intact hearts, skulls etc. See Been 2007, 144-7.


22/74

22

when it came to confronting government powers. The practice of self-immolation

therefore was not strictly political, but rather it was an act that relied on Buddhist

foundations. A short biography of a man named Hutong (d. 649) depicts an instance in

the seventh century where an act of self-immolation was still motivated by the story of

the Medicine King (84). These types of incidents imply that the practice of self-

immolation was still being used in various ways, yet seemed always to be grounded in

religious principle, whether political or not.

In the Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks, Daoxuan makes a point to

explain what the biographies say about the practice of self-immolation. Benn notes that

essence of Daoxuans argument is that they serve a dual purpose: as warnings to the

beginner and as models to the spiritually advanced (Benn 2007, 99). He therefore makes

the clear distinctionas we have seen with Huijiaothat the practice of burning ones

body should only be performed by figures who have reached a specific religious level.

Benn explains:

Although Daoxuan points out that, according to the scriptures, self-immolationmeans exchanging the temporary and impure human body for an indestructible

dharmabody of a Buddha, he is quick to restate the fundamental dichotomy

between advanced bodhisattvas like the Medicine King, who made a powerfulvow and had cultivated theparamitas over many lifetimes, and the ordinary

people who imitate him but are unable to maintain the same level of

determination. (99)

It should be clear then, that there were certainly people in medieval China who opposed

some instances of self-immolation. Daoxuan straightforwardly emphasizes that a self-

immolation could be a failure, which was betrayed by a groan of pain at the point of

death (100). Therefore Daoxuan implies that the self-immolators of correct religious

standing permitted them to be seen as guardians of thesamgha (community) (102). His


23/74

23

views emphasized that self-immolation at many times was not just about the individual,

but generated positive karma for the wellbeing of others, especially the Buddhist

community. This is the same argument that many modern Tibetans are using for the new

wave of self-immolators. The practice is therefore often performed with intentions to

sacrifice the individual in order to help the Tibetan people as a whole.

One question that many biographers did not explicitly discuss was the matter of

suicide. As we have seen through some of the responses of the biographers during these

medieval China, many implied that this act was not to be associated with suicidea term

which holds violent connotations. Daoshi (596-683), a contemporary of Daoxuan,

attempted to tackle the issue of whether self-immolation is suicide or not. He refutes that

self-immolation is suicide using examples from Mahayana literature, stating that an

immolator has no intention of harming others, but on the contrary will invite merit

(Benn 2007, 105). Therefore, because the act is selfless, the intention is pure, and thus the

act will not produce retribution. Another defender of this idea was the biographer

Zanning (ca. 919-1001). He claimed that that there are two types of suicide. The first is

that one kills oneself out of fear of punishmentThe second is that one vows to be

reborn in the Pure Land with a powerful and bold mind (113-4). He reinforces the idea

that intention is what makes the difference. Yongming Yanshou (904-975) also stressed

the importance of intention, teaching that self-immolation was completely legitimate if

one practiced it in an empty manner (122). Benn tells us that as long as one is not

attached to any particular form of practice, he holds that people can attain complete

awakening by means of the single practice of self-immolation (122). Yanshou himself

was an important figure in the history of self-immolation in China, for unlike previous


24/74

24

biographers, he analyzed this practice from a different perspective. He took into account

specific ethical ramifications that were associated with self-immolation (128). He

realized the paradoxes and modern issues that many saw within this practice in real life

and decided to deal with them by seeking out how the doctrines could be endorsed by

contemporaries (128). Yanshou did not deal with self-immolation as a theoretical custom

of the past, but rather a living practice that was just as valid as any other path to nirvana

(128). The issues dealt by him, like many others of this time, will be brought to light

again when we discuss modern Tibet.

Self-immolation has been utilized throughout different times and locations to

respond to contemporary situations. Though many times individuals would immolate in

times of peace for their own purposes, other periods show an obvious correlation of more

frequent self-immolations and times of political unrest. In conjunction with each century

that witnessed self-immolations, there also existed biographers who were willing to give

their various judgments on the practice. As there existed debate among people of

medieval China, there exists an even larger debate in modern times across many more

countries. The questions that will follow us into modern Tibet will concern the motives,

performance, reactions, and effects that self-immolation produces. The question of

whether this practice is even relevant or valid has already been answered. Benn

masterfully upholds that self-immolation is like any other Buddhist practice because it

holds its origins in the scripture of its tradition (Benn 2007, 202). He has traced the

history of this practice to display that self-immolation was in fact always considered a

legitimate practice. He also refutes the idea that this is merely an act of suicide, stating

that their acts were not simply a departure from the world, but an active involvement in


25/74

25

it (202). These views will be taken into consideration as we move on to the modern

issue of self-immolation in the modern era.

Self-Immolation in Modern Times

On June 11, 1963, over two-hundred Buddhist monks rallied throughout Saigon in

order to protest the oppressive rule of the Diem regime in South Vietnam (Yang 2011, 1).

Monks who were well-aware of the event about to take place stopped at the intersection

of Le Van Duyet Street and formed a circle around the monk Thich Quang Duc (1).

Fellow monks along with policemen and various onlookers witnessed Duc sit in the

middle of the street, composed in the lotus posture. Spectators watched as he allowed

other monks to douse his body in gasoline, then finally he ended his life by setting his

own body ablaze (King 2000, 128; Yang 2011, 1). As policeman had struggled to keep

back distraught spectators, including many monks, video footage captures the moment

when the struggle subsided. A Youtube video titled Buddhist Monk Self Immolation

shows the video of Ducs entire demonstration. As soon as Duc lit a match, his body

became a fiery spectacle causing an immediate wave of awe to overcome the crowd

(Ironclaw 2009). There was no more struggle to save Duc. Instead, the policeman who

were barricading the monks trying to get through to Duc simply stopped what they were

doing and turned around to watch what was happening before them (Ironclaw 2009).

Many monks immediately began to prostrate before Duc as his body burned before them

(Ironclaw 2009). The atmosphere then had a sense of calmness, and there were no further

attempts to save Ducs life (Ironclaw 2009). American news correspondent Malcolm


26/74

26

Browne caught the entire event on camera. Brownes photographs of this historic event

catalyzed many significant reactions on a global scale. The photograph won the award for

World Press Photo of the Year in 1963. It became such an iconic image, one that both

shocked the world and brought international attention to the conflict in Vietnam. This

photograph has continued to carry weight, even in the modern world. We should note that

the image is not simply just iconic because of the act that it captures. Rather, it has

become famous for the power that it had in influencing political action in a time of great

unrest. Some even state that his self-immolation marked a decisive moment in the

conflict between the Diem regime, who were backed by the U.S. government, and the

protestors of South Vietnam (Yang 2011, 2). The most famous of his photographs

became one of the iconic images of the Vietnam War. In a modern article looking back

on the impact of Malcom Browne, reporters of Yahoo! News recount:

The photos he took appeared on front pages around the globe and sent shudders

all the way to the White House, prompting President John F. Kennedy to order are-evaluation of his administration's Vietnam policy. "We have to do something

about that regime," Kennedy told Henry Cabot Lodge, who was about to become

U.S. ambassador to Saigon. (Ilnytzky & Pyle 2012)

Brownes photographs therefore drew the attention that was necessary to the problem in

Vietnam. Though many Westerners did not understand the practice of self-immolation,

the fact that this act was being used in a political setting showed that times were

desperatea concept that can be seen in the modern Tibet situation. Ducs immolation

led to American awareness of the conflict within Vietnam, and Diem eventually lost U.S.

support which led to the end of his reign (Yang 2011, 4). The fact that Ducs

demonstration received this type of response may be a motivating factor for Tibetan self-

immolators today who are also experiencing religious oppression.


27/74

27

Though many Americans were shocked and unable to comprehend the act of self-

immolation, there already existed a cultural acceptance that was understood within the

Vietnamese Buddhist community. After his death, Ducs home temple, the crossroads

that he sat at, and even car that he last rode in were all treated as shrines by the

Vietnamese people (King 2000, 142). However, his final act also inspired other acts

within those who wished to imitate his bravery in the face of conflict. Buddhist scholar

Sallie B. King has traced the incidents of self-immolations within the United States that

arose after Thich Quang Ducs demonstration during the Vietnam War. She notes that

though there were other self-immolators during the War, Duc was the first, and he was

therefore the first to do so in a modern context (127). She brings the scope of these events

to America to try to understand the influence that this act has, as well as the individual

motives and the ways in which these acts are carried out. She lists examples of American

self-immolators with a range of backgrounds, from Quakers to students and even

housewives (128).7 King focuses in on the immolation of Norman Morrison, a Quaker

who was well aware of the political situation in Vietnam (128). In a letter to his wife he

explained that his motive for ending his life was to respond to the injustices against the

children in Saigon (128). Another apparent motive for Morrison was that he believed to

have received a message from God, who encouraged him to carry out this act (128). This

case is significant because of these multiple motivations as well as Morrisons Quaker

background, a tradition that has no history of death by ones own hand as an act of

religious witness (129). It was possible this religious background that lead to his deeply

sympathetic feelings towards the suffering of others. Like many other self-immolators,

7 King makes a point to note that other than the eight people she listed, there were others who attempted

self-immolation but survived (128).


28/74

28

the case of Norman Morrison shows us that this act was not based in irrationality and was

not planned spontaneously.8 Morrison arrived at his chosen scene of immolationthe

Pentagonapparently paced for forty-five minutes, and then committed his final act of

death by auto-cremation (130-1). When we compare this incident of self-immolation to

that of Thich Quang Duc, or even the many of the Chinese immolators that we have seen

before him, there seems to be a striking similarity. The concept of a politically charged

immolation that is grounded in religion brings us directly to the movement in present

Tibet.

On April 27, 1998, Tibet witnessed its first modern self-immolation.

9

Thupten

Ngodup, a sixty-year old ex-Buddhist monk, was the first known Tibetan to set himself

on fire in direct response to Tibets ongoing conflict with China (Buffetrille 2012, 1).

According to sources, Ngodups original intention was to participate in a hunger strike

until death with fellow advocates of the Tibetan Youth Congress10in Delhi, India (1).

However, on April 27, Indian police began to forcefully remove the protestors, which

prompted Ngodup to take matters into his own hands and self-immolate before the crowd

(1). Jamyang Norbu, a blogger for Rangzen Alliance11 describes video footage that

captured the incident in great detail:

He avoided the police dragnet one gets a glimpse of him slipping past the

police in the video shot by Choyang Tharchin of the Department of Information

8 King tells us that Morrisons wife claimed that she and her husband had a normal conversation the

morning of his death. He apparently seemed to be in a sane and normal state of mind, and even told her that

he had never felt better or more right (King 2000, 130).9 Before Thupten Ngodup, there were some Tibetans who committed self-immolation in a religious context.

Katia Buffetrille references theBashe, a historical text from the 9 th century which focuses on the integrationof Buddhism in Tibet and mentions an incident of self-immolation (though possible of a Chinese master).

However, in Pawo Tsuglak TrengwasFeast for the Learned, she notes the self-immolation of a monk as a

religious ritual in the 11th century (8-9).10 The Tibetan Youth Congress advocates working towards the independence of Tibet. More information

can be found at http://tibetanyouthcongress.org/11 The Rangzen Alliance is a website that offers blogs and articles on the history of Tibet and advocates its

independence.


29/74

29

and International Relations (DIIR) and made his way to the public toilet. He

opened a plastic container of gasoline, which he must have hidden there earlier,

and dowsed himself thoroughly. Then he struck a match or flicked a lighter.Someone who was there told me that he probably did not come out immediately

from the toilet and must have deliberately remained a moment or two inside to

ensure that he was well lit. That, of course, is conjecture. When he came out hewas, quite literally, an inferno. The DIIR video makes that horrifyingly clear. We

see him charging out to the area before the hunger strikers tent, causing chaos in

the ranks of the police as well as the Tibetans there. A very English female voice off camera screams, Oh my God!, Oh my God!, again and again. With

that and other screams and shouts, it is impossible to hear what the burning man is

saying. According to someone there, he shouted Bod Gyal lo! or Victory to

Tibet!. Others heard him crying Bod Rangzen! or Independence for Tibet!.He also shouted Long live His Holiness the Dalai Lama!. How on earth he

managed to shout anything, much less run about as he did is a mystery to me.

Every breath he took must have caused live flames to rush into his lungs and sear

the air sacs and lining. The burning man then appears to pause and hold up bothhands together in a position of prayer. At this point the fire seems terribly intense

and the cameraman later told me that he could distinctly hear popping sounds asbits of flesh burst from Thupten Ngodups body. The cameraman was so shaken

that he found it difficult to hold his camera steady. Then policemen and Tibetan

bystanders beat at the flames with rugs and gunny-sacks, and finally, pushingThupten Ngodup to the ground, stifled the blaze. (Norbu 1998)

Ngodup passed away on April 29, 1998. Before his death he had been taken directly to a

local hospital where he received a visit from the Dalai Lama (Buffetrille 2012, 1). The

Dalai Lama spoke to Ngodup as he silently rested in bed, suffering from nearly one-

hundred percent burns on his body (Norbu 1998). He advised him that "he should not

harbour any feeling of hatred towards the Chinese, and that his act had created an

unprecedented awareness of the Tibetan cause (Norbu 1998). There are many accounts

of the Dalai Lamas response to self-immolations in Tibet, and most of his statements

seem to avoid both support and complete opposition. Many have struggled trying to

decipher whether or not the Dalai Lama actually agrees with these tacticsa topic we

will come back to later. Nonetheless, this graphic account of the self-immolation of

Thupten Ngodup gives us the sense that this act in the modern political era has taken on


30/74

30

new unanticipated and evocative characteristics than what we had previously seen in the

history of China. These modern demonstrations are now taking place among unprepared

audiences in the public domain. Furthermore, they take on a new dramatic aspect in that

many of these immolators are physically active in the midst of the crowdrunning and

screaming as opposed to sitting in a meditative state.

The responses to this event varied among those who tried to understand why this

had happened. Jane Ardley notes that though on one hand, the Tibetan government

expressed their sorrow at Ngodups death, they also said that self-immolation was not to

be encouraged, implying that it was an extreme act that would be embarrassing for India

(Ardley 2000, 21). The Tibetan Youth Congress conversely stated that Ngodup was to be

deemed a martyr among the Tibetan people, that his act had sent a message to the world

that Tibetans were willing to sacrifice even their lives for a free Tibet, and most

importantly that if the Tibetan problem did not receive proper attention, more blood will

be shed in the coming days (21). The contrast in the extreme actions taken by the TYC

and the Middle Path12 proposed by the Dalai Lama was greatly emphasized after these

events. It showed many that Tibet was not unified, and that it was suffering internally

from conflicting views on how to solve the conflict with China. Though Tibetans had

once found solace in the Dalai Lama as their spiritual and political leader, they have

begun to take matters into their own hands. Many of those who witnessed or heard about

Thupten Ngodups self-immolation were compelled to make the comparison with the

politically charged immolation of Thich Quang Duc in 1963.13The fact that Ngodup

12 The Middle Path, advocated by the Dalai Lama, is the use of non-violence to achieve a peaceful

resolution.13 For more on this connection, see Remembering Thupten Ngodup,

http://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2008/05/12/remembering-thupten-ngodup/


31/74

31

brought this practice to modern Tibet set the precedent for many that this act was now to

be used as a political tool.

On November 23, 2006, another Tibetan self-immolated in India. This incident

came eight years after that of Ngodups, yet held the same political implications.14 The

next self-immolation occurred in 2009 by a monk known as Tapey. This particular

immolation was significant in that it was the first to have been performed inside of Tibet.

Tapey was in his mid-twenties at the time of his death, yet the young monk catalyzed a

wave a self-immolations that were soon to occur in the Ngawa region of Tibet (Buffetrille

2012, 4). He also formed his self-immolation as a political demonstration, holding a

Tibetan flag and a picture of the Dalai Lama as he self-immolated (4). His protest was

aimed specifically at the Chinese authorities who had forbidden prayer ceremony in his

monastery (4). This monastery, known famously as the Kirti monastery, would become

well known to those who paid attention to the rising tensions in Tibet. It became the

location for the next Tibetan self-immolation two years later when Phuntsok, another

Kirti monk, set himself on fire on March 16, 2011 (4). Since then at least 40 of the 113

incidents of self-immolation have occurred within the Ngaba Tibetan and Qiang

Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan province, with many having immolated directly in front

of the Kirti Monastery.15 Most of the self-immolations in the earlier stages (that is,

directly following Phuntsok) were performed by monks or nuns. The International

Campaign for Tibet website has an active list of the people who have self-immolated

within Tibet. They assert that of the 114 self-immolators (starting with Phuntosk), 96

14 Lhakpa Tsering, President of Regional Tibetan Youth Congress, Bangalore set himself on fire in Mumbai

while protesting Hu Jintaos visit to India and Chinas occupation of Tibet. Lhakpa along with 11 other

TYC activists charged the gates of the hotel where Hu was staying, waving the Tibetan National Flag and

shouting Free Tibet slogans. Tsering survived the attempted self-immolation (Tibetan Activist

Attempts 2006).15 The time frame of these immolations is March 16, 2011 - April 17, 2013.


32/74

32

were men, and 18 were women; 36 were monks/nuns or an ex-monk/nun; 1 was a lama;

93 are known to have died following their protest, 23 were 18 or under; 12 were monks at

Kirti monastery in Ngaba; 10 are former monks at Kirti monastery in Ngaba; and finally,

apart from the 114 within Tibet, 5 self-immolations have been performed by Tibetans in

exile ("Self-Immolations by Tibetans" 2013). The statistics given by the ICT website

imply specific trends about the self-immolations in Tibet. It seems that two general waves

of immolations have taken place. The first were performed by monks and nuns, mostly

from the Kirti monastery. The second wave consists mostly of laypeople and monks from

other monasteries. Perhaps these waves are able to show that first it was the religious

figures who took on this difficult task, and those who followed suit staged protests as

acts of support or sympathy for the general principles implied by primary immolators

(Barnett 2012, 53). Those who have followed this political movement are aware that new

self-immolations are still occurring every week, sometimes multiple times per day. It

seems that the wave of these acts have taken over Tibet with such intensity that many are

left simply confused and shocked. The fact that laypeople are now predominantly

performing these acts implies that the common people are now willing to go to the most

extreme measures to help free Tibet, to such an extent that they are prepared to burn

themselves to death.

Contexts and Causes for Self-Immolation

It is important to distinguish that the self-immolations that we see in modern Tibet

are quite different from those we had seen in medieval China. Starting with the first


33/74

33

instance of self-immolation in Buddhist historythat of the Medicine King in theLotus

Sutrawe have seen that this act was initially established as a religious ritual. It had no

ties to the modern associations of politics that protestors utilize today. However, Benn

does account for some instances where self-immolation throughout medieval China took

on the issue of politics in addition to the immolators religious goals. As previously

discussed, the biographer Daoxuan gave an account of self-immolation by the monk Puji,

which occurred in the sixth century. His description of the incident explains that this

monks motives for this act were both to be reborn in a most worthy state and also to

make a vow in order to preserve that Buddhism would survive despite the opposing

politics of the time (Benn 2007, 81). We can therefore understand that this mixture of

politics and religion continued to be motivating factors for self-immolations during

medieval China. This idea was made aware to audiences in the modern era by Thich

Quang Duc in 1963. Michelle Yang argues that Ducs immolation was not solely

political, rather it can be seen as a hybrid protestone that was religiously grounded but

also politically motivated, which functioned as a reclamation agency for South

Vietnamese Buddhists (Yang 2011, 9). This is an important description of Ducs self-

immolation, for it illustrates that the act has purpose in the modern world yet still keeps

its religious foundation. This use of self-immolation by Duc gave the practice attention

from international media, leading to its introduction to a variety of audiences. The new

audiences for self-immolation now had a chance to interpret this Buddhist act within their

own contexts. However, some failed to understand the true spiritual essence of these acts.

The self-immolations that occurred in America following Ducs performance are

different from his act in that they can be viewed as purely political. Norman Morrison,


34/74

34

though a peace-loving Quaker, did not have the same ties to the acts of the Medicine

King or even the Buddha as did the Vietnamese immolators. His self-immolation can

therefore be contextualized within the politics of the Vietnam War from an American

perspective. In the modern era then, we can see that the practice of self-immolation can

be utilized in the realm of politics without having any basis in the religion from which it

takes its origins.

Contextualizing the self-immolations of modern Tibetans will further clarify the

nature and intention of these acts. Many who are not familiar with the Buddhist tradition

might think that these acts are solely utilized as political demonstrations. Tsering Shakya

states, The current spate of self-immolation that is taking place, aimed at protest rather

than devotion, is thus a new development in forms of Tibetan protests (Shakya 2012a,

10). Though many of these immolations are occurring in direct response to the political

tensions between Tibet and China, the people who have performed these acts have not

forgotten their religious heritage. It would be unfair to claim that modern Tibetan

immolations lie only within the realm of politics. The monks and nuns who began to

carry out these acts in the first wave of self-immolations in Tibet initially utilized this

practice because they were aware of the power it held in a religious setting. Some of the

Tibetans are even mirroring, whether unintentionally or not, immolations that took place

in medieval China. For instance, there was a unique case where two nuns performed a

joint-immolation in 493 as a type of combined offering (Benn 2007, 44). It was followed

by another immolation from a sister of one of the nuns exactly one year later. These joint

immolations have been seen on more than one occasion in modern Tibet. On September

26, 2011, two 18-year old monks from the Kirti monastery self-immolated together


35/74

35

(Two More Tibetan Monks 2011). According to some Tibetan sources, one of these

monks was a relative of Phuntsok, the monk who had self-immolated on March 16, 2011

(Two More Tibetan Monks 2011). It is quite common to find that some of the Tibetans

are related to individuals who have previously self-immolated. It raises the question

whether they were inspired by a predecessor or intended to have committed the act

nonetheless. This is a question that we cannot answer, for no one has been allowed to

interview those who have survived their attempts at self-immolation.16

There is in fact another trend within the evolution of self-immolations in modern

Tibet, one which implies that religious figures act as catalysts. Shakya describes that the

actions of these monks and nuns reflect[ed] the framing among Tibetans of monks as the

guardians of tradition and as moral leaders, also stating, The active involvement of

religious figures in protest is an indication that the monks have taken on the onerous task

of acting as the defenders of the Tibetan tradition (Shakya 2012a, 34). If we look back to

the examples of self-immolation that we had seen in BennsBurning for the Buddha, it is

clear that most of the immolations that took place in medieval China that we have

evidence of were committed by religious figures. However, in modern Tibet these figures

are performing the same act, yet it seems to be charged with entirely different

implications. More people seem to be directly motivated by politics rather than personal

spiritual attainment.

The fact that self-immolation was catalyzed by religious figures in itself should

tell us that these acts have not completely moved beyond the realm of religion. Even the

trend of the Kirti monastery self-immolations emphasizes that this act was specifically

16 There has been no form of contact with those who have survived self-immolations due to the fact that

Chinese authorities have forcefully taken the bodies away and kept them hidden from the public. Often

times, families are not even sure if a person is still alive or not. China has yet to release any attempted self-

immolator.


36/74

36

meant to be associated with religion. It is hard to overlook that the staging of these first

immolations were intended to occur at or near the Kirti monastery, one of the largest

religious institutions in Tibet as well as an important center of political influence (Shakya

2012a, 35). Even the setting of these immolations seems to be a hybrid of both the

religious and political spheres. In this way, the Tibetans have contextualized these self-

immolations as both acts of sacrifice and religious acts in that one is giving up their own

body for the benefit of others (36).

However, this view is being challenged by many onlookers, especially Chinese

authorities who believe that self-immolations are acts of violent terrorism. Zhu Weiquin,

Vice-Minister of the United Front department of the CCP stated that the Kirti monastery

is widely known for organizing bloodshed, sabotage and penetration (Shakya 2012a

35-6)17. Nonetheless, neither Zhu nor the Chinese authorities have found any legitimate

evidence that the self-immolations at the Kirti monastery have been prompted by the

monastery itself (36). The immolations that occur at the Kirti monastery have become a

problem for the Chinese government because of the way in which they are attracting

attention and drawing in crowds. Shakya states:

[the] protests in China often operate at the neighbourhood level, and involve a

collective of residents from within that neighbourhood. In the Tibetan areas, it is

the monasteries that act like a work unit or neighborhood. (37)

Thus, the importance of a single location that held both political and religious

associations allowed for demonstrations that could mirror this same context. The Kirti

monastery was then vital in propelling the wave of self-immolations that took over Tibet.

17 Original source: Investigations show political motive behind self-immolations in Tibetan-populated

regions,

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-03/07/c_131452109.htm


37/74

37

It continues to act as the religious backdrop for these politically motivated acts, implying

that the Buddhist tradition has not left the minds of the protestors.

If we recall the self-immolation of Jampa Yeshi on March 26, 2012, we can make

a clear distinction between his modern performance and that of a Buddhist monk in

medieval China. Yeshis protest took place in the streets of New Delhi, India. It was not

staged as a religious ritual and was not performed in front of a monastery or in a religious

setting. Yeshi was not a monk, but a layman. He did not even reside in Tibet, but rather

lived as an exile in India. Yeshis self-immolation was immediately motivated by the

arrival of the political leader Hu Jintao in New Delhi. His protest came in the form of

self-immolation, but one that seems quite removed from religion. He shocked crowds as

he ran through the streets of New Delhi, transforming himself into a human torch. A

writer forGlobalPostreported that following Yeshis immolation, Tibetan students

throughout India were confined to their residences and banned from talking to reporters

(Deasy 2012). News websites like The Huffington Postand GlobalPostoffer brief

accounts of Yeshis self-immolation, framing it in the context of political protest. They

even offer graphic images of Yeshi as he burned alive. However, Jeffrey Bartholet of

National Geographic explored the life of Yeshi in greater detail in order to narrate a

fuller story and provide insight to his final acts on earth.18 We learn from the background

he provides that Yeshis immolation was not as spontaneous as many media outlets

would like to portray. He had proposed that he would self-immolate as far back as 2008

(Bartholet 2012). He was not even completely removed from religious influence, having

been a helper at a Buddhist temple in Majnu ka Tilla and having received his education

18 Though there exists numerous articles and sources on the immolation of Jampa Yeshi, Bartholets article

Tibet's Man on Fire remains the most extensive and detailed.


38/74

38

from the monks in a local monastery who taught him to read religious texts (Bartholet

2012). Images of Jampa Yeshis self-immolation have surfaced on the internet, causing

his particular act to encapsulate the modern Tibetan movement. However, photographs of

a man on fire running through the streets in obvious agonizing pain have become

problematic for the Tibetan struggle. It is particularly challenging for Westerners to

comprehend that this graphic act could be grounded in Buddhist ritual, notably because

we tend to perceive it as a peaceful tradition. When news outlets portray self-immolators

like Jampa Yeshi as exclusively political activists, it unfairly degrades the essence of the

act. Yeshi was clearly aware of the cultural norms of Buddhist culture and the way in

which self-immolation functioned within it. His self-immolation, though not publicly

advertised, was nonetheless influenced by his religious background.

The issues that arise from immolations performed in the manner of Jampa Yeshi

place focus on the physical characteristics of the act. Unlike what the world had known to

be the archetypical politically charged and religiously grounded self-immolation

specifically that of Thich Quang DucYeshis demonstration had an atmosphere of

chaos. He did not have the support of his onlookers in the way that Duc did. On the

contrary, many attempted to douse the flames that engulfed him (Bartholet 2012). He did

not sit peacefully in quiet meditation, but rather ran frantically through crowded streets

showing physical signs of pain (Bartholet 2012). The signals of pain, such as facial

gestures, body movement, and groans, imply to some that this act is not being performed

by a person who has reached the proper level of spiritual attainment necessary for this act

to be considered a legitimate ritual by traditional standard. The biographer Daoxuan

claimed that only skilled bodhisattvas were able to perform self-immolation correctly.


39/74

39

Benn notes that Daoxuan admits, there were certainly cases of people whose self-

immolation was unsuccessful because they had insufficient power or determination. Their

failure was betrayed by a groan of pain at the point of death (Benn 2007, 100). Daoxuan

was not the only observer who felt this way. This view that only certain classes of people

were religiously fit for self-immolation was prevalent among many other biographers

who recorded these acts. According to these medieval Buddhists, demonstrations like that

of Jampa Yeshi would probably be seen as a deviation from this sacred act. However, the

emphasis that many of these critics have is on self-determination. King points out a key

problem when one attempts to analyze self-immolations: The crucial point overlooked

by the Buddhist commentators is that others cannot see our motivation; they can only see

our action (King 2000, 143). This statement presents the barrier of understanding that

makes observing the true motivations for individual self-immolations challenging for

scholars and the public alike.

Robert Barnett ventures into both the possible causes and sources of influences

that may have contributed to modern Tibet immolations. He notes that the reason why

many attribute these acts to the political sphere is due to the fact that since at least 2008

almost all protests have been primarily expressions of support for the Dalai Lama and in

most cases protestors have carried photographs of him (Barnett 2012, 50). It is true that

if we simply glance at the list of self-immolations, even those that are still occurring, we

will find that most have reference to the Dalai Lama. Many times, an individual will

shout for a long life to the Dalai Lama as well as his return to Tibet and a return of his

power. If the focus of the motivation for these self-immolators were in fact on the Dalai

Lama, then that would simply reaffirm the idea that modern Tibetan self-immolations are


40/74

40

both political and religious, for the Dalai Lama is still viewed as a political and religious

leader. Barnetts study shows that only nine Tibetan self-immolators had left statements

to help explain the cause of their actions.19 Sobha Trulku, a lama who self-immolated in

January 2012, left behind a detailed statement as a testament to his actions. In it, he

addresses the reasons for his own individual act and what he wishes others to take from

it. He specifically calls on his fellow Tibetans:

To all my spiritual brothers and sisters, and the faithful ones living elsewhere:You must unite and work together to build a strong and prosperous Tibetan nation

in the future. This is the sole wish of all the Tibetan heroes. Therefore, you must

avoid any quarreling amongst yourselves whether it is land disputes or water

disputes. You must maintain unity and strength. Give love and education to thechildren, who should study hard to master all the traditional fields of studies. The

elders should carry out spiritual practice as well as maintain and protect Tibetanlanguage and culture by using all your resources and by involving your body,

speech and mind. It is extremely important to genuinely practice Buddhist

principles in order to benefit the Tibetan cause and also to lead all sentient beingstowards the path of enlightenment. (Harrowing Images and Last Message

2012).

This testament explains that not every immolator expects to solve the Tibetan conflict

with China, or even make a dent in politics at all. Trulku advises the people to focuses on

cultural unity, education for children in traditional studies, and protection of spiritual and

cultural heritage by elder generations. The emphasis is therefore placed on maintaining a

spiritual and traditional culture rather than pushing towards a political platform. In this

way, the self-immolators, not the onlookers, have framed their own acts in a cultural

context. There is a direct correlation between self-immolation and the call to involve

ones body, speech and mind to protect the Tibetan tradition. Their culture is being

attacked and repressed, and they have therefore taken it upon themselves to bring

attention to this major issue. This testament therefore encompasses an act of the human

19 Only nine responses had been left up until Barnetts study, which was published in December 2012.


41/74

41

condition to which all peoples and cultures can relate. Barnett notes that the other

testaments articulate similar concerns. They seem to focus more on Tibetan nationality

and the unification of the people rather than specific political aims (Barnett 2012, 54).

They also emphasize the importance of preserving Tibetan culture and focus on broad,

long-term concerns about the erosion of Tibetan culture, religion and education in general

and the suffering of living under Chinese rule (54). Some of these testimonies even refer

to the hopes that their acts not only benefit Tibetans, but all worldly beings (54). Self-

immolations then parallel the structure of other customary Buddhist rituals that typically

include vows for the benefit of all sentient beings. It thus seems apparent that not all self-

immolators view their acts as a political tool. Rather, as people like Shakya have insisted,

they have become the guardians of tradition as well as moral leaders. Many modern

Tibetans who have never experienced a peaceful Tibet are still aware of the cultural

institutions of Tibet and can thus recognize that these carefully planned self-immolations

hold more weight than others may understand.

Responses to Self-Immolations

An important aspect of the modern practice of self-immolation in Tibet is how

people are responding to it. To further this inquiry we must also ask whether or not this

act is expected to receive a specific kind of response. That is, do self-immolators or those

who support self-immolation expect their acts to have a particular reaction? In addition to


42/74

42

this, how do responses vary among different audiences? We will look at how self-

immolations have been received starting with the first modern example of Thich Quang

Duc in Vietnam. I will compare this with the self-immolation that followed in America

by Norman Morrison so that we may understand how a Western audience initially

responded to this action. The case of Norman Morrison is significant because it is seen as

an attempt to mirror a foreign act that had n

self immolation in tibet

Documents