An Atheist Explores the Dhammapada Part Twenty: Warning: This Post Contains Orange Buffoon (The Just/Dhammatthavagga)

Dhammapada Part Nineteen: The Just (Dhammatthavagga)

Warning: This Post Contains Orange Buffoon.

“Not by passing arbitrary judgments does a man become just; a wise man is he who investigates both right and wrong.”

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 Nineteen: The Just (Dhammatthavagga)

This chapter is largely concerned with what does and does not make a person just, and it seems particularly to be addressed to those who would be monks, for example “Not by shaven head does a man who is indisciplined and untruthful become a monk. How can he who is full of desire and greed be a monk?”

There’s quite a lot like that, discussing how merely going through the motions and looking the part are not enough – “He is not a monk just because he lives on others' alms. Not by adopting outward form does one become a true monk”. Rather, one needs to adopt the right kind of attitude – “Whoever here (in the Dispensation) lives a holy life, transcending both merit and demerit, and walks with understanding in this world — he is truly called a monk”.

What’s a little unusual here is that, rather than demand an equanimous mind to both good and evil, as discussed elsewhere in the Dhammapada, here the text clearly takes a side – “One in whom there is truthfulness, virtue, inoffensiveness, restraint and self-mastery, who is free from defilements and is wise — he is truly called an Elder” and also “that man is wise who, as if holding a balance-scale accepts only the good”.

So, there’s not detachment here. One cannot be truly detached and yet also lean towards “the good”, since that, surely, is a desire in itself; to be good? And yet, I prefer this version since the idea of not being concerned with anything really wasn’t sitting well with me. But then again, perhaps this is a special rule for monks, and those seeking to become arahants. It’s not clear.

Once again, though, there are echoes in the teachings attributed to Jesus, that it’s not about ostentatious prayer and paying for expensive sacrifices at the Temple, it’s about what’s in the heart that matters (although Jesus then makes it all cult-y and insists that he’s some kind of gateway to the whole redemption thing).

I’ve jumped ahead here, because the earlier verses do more to spell out what is “the good” or, rather, what kind of things do and don’t make a man wise. And I’m afraid I really can’t help but think of D****d T***p for many of these. For example “One is not wise because one speaks much. He who is peaceable, friendly and fearless is called wise”. And also there’s a perfect description of exactly what that orange buffoon is not – “One in whom there is truthfulness, virtue, inoffensiveness, restraint and self-mastery, who is free from defilements and is wise — he is truly called an Elder.”

As I write this, by the way, the orange buffoon is refusing to concede pretty conclusive election results. It’ll be an interesting little time capsule to see how things have panned out by the time I get to publish.

[Insert from future me when editing this: It’s over a year and he’s still going on about it, despite 60 failed legal attempts to overthrow the election, an attempted coup (with no consequences as yet) and various types of nonsense and stirring]

I will leave the final word for now to the Dhammapada – “He is not noble who injures living beings. He is called noble because he is harmless towards all living beings”.