6 ms·
It’s considered rude to mock their sacrifice of life by trivializing their act as lacking virtue or faith. To take another religious figure oppressed by the sta
by aspenmayer 6y ago
It’s considered rude to mock their sacrifice of life by trivializing their act as lacking virtue or faith. To take another religious figure oppressed by the state as an example, what makes the monks’ protest actions any less religious than those of Jesus allowing himself to be killed by the state? How is he any less brainwashed in your view, and why is your view relevant in this case if not in my example?
- pfortuny 6y agoNot to nitpick or simplify your argument but there is a huge difference between "doing nothing in self-defense" and "setting oneself on fire".
- aspenmayer 6y agoIf it’s holy in the sight of their god, who are we to judge. If they were willing, it could be argued that no harm was done, even to those who ceased to exist. They chose to cease living to cast their prior life up to that point in starker contrast to their surroundings and peers in time, place, and belief. [This post does not advocate self-harm. Please seek help from those you trust if you have urges to do so. I care about you, person reading this right now. Please be well.]
- trasz 6y agoJesus wasn't opressed by taking away his slaves, was he?
- aspenmayer 6y agoPlease refer me to the passage in which Jesus freed the slaves serving under Rome? Religious figures aren’t always perfect in our eyes; that doesn’t mean aspiring to virtue is meaningless. It’s an endless journey to salvation and nirvana, but we’re all slouching towards Bethlehem.
- trasz 6y agoThat's cool and stuff, but irrelevant to what we are discussing here. In Tibet, monasteries benefited greatly from slavery. Abolition of slavery hurt them a lot. No wonder they are protesting.
- aspenmayer 6y agoI’m responding to your comments. It’s relevant to the discussion you started. If you don’t follow your own comments to their logical conclusion, wouldn’t you say you’re not arguing in good faith? It’s kind of how we do things on HN. Tibetan monasteries as they operated historically are an artifact of history. Further historical and archaeological studies would be the only way to gather verifiable data, facts, figures, and artifacts from the period when the supposed slavery occurred. This conversation seems like it is mired in historical revisionism on all sides. I’m not a Chinese Tibetan anthropologist or archaeologist, nor am I a Tibetan Buddhist scholar. I don’t know the facts of what happened, or how their society interpreted those events and the people who experienced them. For me to stand in judgement of such a nebulous concept would be irresponsible. That you are convinced of the correctness of your beliefs is good; you should seek to share your sources so we too can be similarly convinced. Otherwise we’ll just have to take your word for it, which is no better a place than we’re in now. For what it’s worth, slavery is much worse than being a serf. However, being a serf was likely so miserable that the distinction to our modern sensibilities may be one without a difference. I am opposed to forced servitude in all the world in all its forms.
- trasz 6y agoThe studies already exist, though. I don't think any of them questions the fact that monasteries benefited greatly from serfdom/slavery; the dispute is about how horrible it was for the rest of the population. (Random Wikipedia quote: "Tibetan communist Phuntso Wangye recalled his anger at seeing freshly severed human ears hanging from the gate of the county headquarters in Damshung north of Lhasa in 1945".)
- 6y ago