Wednesday, February 23, 2011
A) There are many differences and similarities between them. These are the ones that I could think of. Similarities: Hurt themselves, wanted something, had a way of telling the public, wanted to draw attention to their cause, and thought that they needed to do something profound to do so. Differences: The burning Monk did it out of religion rights, but Mohamed Bouazizi burned himself because the government was not listening to the people and what they wanted. He was fed up with who was in control and that they were doing absolutely nothing to help the people. The Burning Monk had burned himself in order to bring awareness to his cause, which was the idea that Vietnam was suffocating Buddhist tradition. He wanted the ban on putting up the traditional Buddhist flag taken off, wanted Buddhism to have the same rights as Catholicism did, and also wanted Buddhist monks to have the right to practice their religion. His death, along with what it created, did have some impact on these goals, including the overthrowing of the Catholic Diem regime that was in control of South Vietnam. Mohamed just wanted his scale back and also more rights, but the Burning Monk focused his burning on our first amendment.
B) I think that many people would follow these two people’s example, if they wanted something bad enough. Many people fight or what they believe in and use violence in trying to do that, but I had never heard of anyone who would physically hurt themselves, even if they would give up the world to have it. Hurting yourself draws much attention to your cause, but if you do not have a way to share what you are doing, it ends up only hurting you.
C) “Character is the colossal hope of human improvement within and without. Character is blazing sunshine in the soul’s abode, the body. A perfect society is built upon mutual trust. Character is the source of that trust. Character is just what we inwardly are and outwardly do. The secret of inner success is constancy to our highest character. "--Sri Chinmoy