An Atheist Explores the Dhammapada Part Eighteen: Yoda, Plato, Joshua D Greene, and whoever Atula is (Anger/Khodavagga)

Dhammapada Part Seventeen: Anger (Khodavagga)

Yoda, Plato, Joshua D Greene, and whoever Atula is.

“One should give up anger, renounce pride, and overcome all fetters. Suffering never befalls him who clings not to mind and body and is detached.”

Welcome to the next instalment of An Atheist Explores Sacred Texts (Dhammapada).

In this series I work my way chapter-by-chapter through the Dhammapada, commenting on it from the point of view of the text as literature and mythology.

For more detail, see the introductory post https://bit.ly/3IbwtwE

For the online Dhammapada that I use, see here https://bit.ly/3IgCiJr

And now:

Dhammapada Part Seventeen: Anger (Khodavagga)

More Yoda-style wisdom here, where we are told to let go of our anger lest it lead to suffering. Let’s be fair though, Yoda is giving Buddhist-style teachings, isn’t he, not the other way around.

As well as Yoda, the Dhammapada next sounds a little like Plato, by stating that “He who checks rising anger as a charioteer checks a rolling chariot, him I call a true charioteer. Others only hold the reins”. That’s Plato’s analogy of what he considers the three parts of the human mind – appetite, “spirit” and reason. Reason (nous) needs to be like a charioteer reining in the twin horses of appetite (the physical desires) and “spirit” (thymos) is the kind of emotional drive that brings anger at injustice or desire to succeed. The notion, here, for both Buddhism and Platonism, of one part of the human mind trying to control another, is pretty common in both philosophy and religion. To me, it stems from the different operations of the older parts of the brain, especially the limbic system, driving us as human animals in our fundamental drives to survive as individuals and as a species, versus the newer, overly complicated, neo-cortex that attempts to rationalise everything.

In that sense, that rational vs. appetitive thoughts only stem from different parts of a bodged-together brain, is one able to truly claim that it’s a “good” thing to let the rational neocortex take control, as the Dhammapada, Plato and countless others believe? I think that, on balance, it does make for a society less dependent on fighting and struggling between individuals. We’ve got a way to go yet, since the neo-cortical part can easily be fooled into thinking that fear and anger and selfishness are sometimes good things. But although this may mean that there’s no absolute, external requirement to act in this way, it can be demonstrated that being more rational about things, especially on a societal level, makes everything more pleasant for everyone.

And I’ve only done two verses so far. In fact, Verse 3 continues this thought – “Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the liar by truth”. In other words, when they go low, we go high. I don’t think that this tactic always works, but it’s a good route to follow. Nothing is more maddening to somebody trying to start a fight than their opponent refusing to take the bait.

The Dhammapada continues with “Speak the truth; yield not to anger; when asked, give even if you only have a little. By these three means can one reach the presence of the gods”, and again I can’t help but notice similarities between this and other religions/philosophies. Giving, even when you have little, is quite a common theme in the teachings of Synoptic Gospels Jesus, for example. And didn’t I wonder back then if He’d heard some Buddhist teaching somewhere in His life?

There’s a bit about the wise sage achieving Nibbana, which I’ll skip, as we’ve seen that kind of thing before. Then around the middle of this chapter we get “O Atula! Indeed, this is an ancient practice, not one only of today: they blame those who remain silent, they blame those who speak much, they blame those who speak in moderation. There is none in the world who is not blamed”.

I really like that – there’s always someone willing to complain. And as the next couple of verses make clear, actually there’s rarely anyone who can’t. And what is the meaning of the ejaculation “O Atula”? There are no footnotes from this, and looking it up there are quite a few Atulas. Most likely is one who was an attendant (upasaka) of Gotama Buddha, although there are also a couple of naga kings as well.