What is the Ancient Law that is refereed to a few times in the Dhammapada, firstly in DP5?

thickpaper

Thank's in advance
+:)=:):):)

GuyC

Hi Thickpaper,

I believe the "eternal"/"timeless"/"unalterable" (various translations that I have heard regarding Dhammapada verse 5) law referred to is that of loving kindness being the antidote to hatred.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether it is 500BC or 2011AD, loving kindness remains as the solution to hatred - it is not a case of "well, that was okay for people back then, but things are different now".

Metta,

Guy

sukhita

"What is the Ancient Law that is refereed to a few times in the Dhammapada, firstly in DP5?"

The Gil Fronsdal translation of Dhp5 is: "Hatred never ends through hatred. By non-hate alone does it end. This is an ancient truth."

Whenever I read this verse, the words "ancient truth" reminds me of what the Buddha said of the 4NT-8FPath being an ancient/eternal "long forgotten" truth/path that was always there (or something to that effect, sorry, don't know the actual words or source). So, I look upon this "truth" as being a part of the 4NT-8FPath. But that's just me....

The "non-hate" could mean the absence hate, but as Guy said, I also think it means the presence of loving-kindness, the antidote to hatred.

Jason

Thanissaro translates esa dhammo sanantano as 'an unending truth,' and I prefer that translation myself. I think it's more poetic and better illustrates the timelessness of the idea that "hostilities are stilled through non-hostility" (i.e., metta) and not through hostility and violence. That said, the commentary to this particular verse states that dhammo sanantano (eternal law/truth) is the same as poranako dhammo (ancient law/truth), a synonym for the doctrine followed by the Budhha and his disciples, e.g., SN 12.65, which calls the noble eightfold path "an ancient path (puranamaggo), an ancient road (purananjaso)."

bodhipunk

Unending, unalterable, or ancient..a lot of different religions and philosophies teach about "turning the other cheek", "loving your neighbor as yourself", "ahimsa paramo dharma", etc. Why continue a vicious cycle of hatred and vengeance?

federica

"Turning the other cheek" actually is an act of defiance, not of pacifism.

Just to be precise....

In Matthew 5:38-39, Jesus says, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

......why did Jesus specify the right cheek? (. . .) Well, let's read what scholar Walter Wink wrote on the subject:

A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. As the Dead Sea Scrolls specify, even to gesture with the left hand at Qu'ran carried the penalty of ten days' penance. The only way one could strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand.
What we are dealing with here is unmistakably an insult, not a fistfight. The intention is not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer in this way, and, if one did, the fine was exorbitant (four zuz was the fine for a blow to a peer with a fist, 400 zuz for backhanding him; but to an underling, no penalty whatever). A backhand slap was the normal way of admonishing inferiors. Masters back-handed slaves; husbands - wives; parents - children; men - women; Romans - Jews.

Thus, Jesus was not advising sheep-like passivity; rather, he was providing the oppressed with a tactic for effective defiance. (. . .) And violent resistance was futile and could mean your death. So Jesus' prescription was perhaps people's only recourse, and it was brilliant.

Think about it: You're a Jew and you've been backhanded on your right cheek by a Roman soldier. By turning the left to him, you're turning the tables on him — in a sense. You're sending the message that you've retained your dignity, that you won't be cowed or demeaned. Now, what is the soldier to do? Those cultural and legal proscriptions prevent him from backhanding you with his left hand on your left cheek, which you've now presented to him, and if he strikes you normally with his right fist, he is then treating you as an equal. And this would defeat the purpose of the strike. As Wink wrote, ". . . the whole point of the back of the hand is to reinforce the caste system and its institutionalized inequality." And whether or not the tactic was foolproof isn't the issue. The point is that it provided powerless people with some recourse.

I've abridged it slightly, because there was some text that wasn't relevant. But it's from a Q&A website.

The point I think, is well made; hatred cannot be overcome by hatred. However, even the Buddha never told anyone to lie down and be a doormat, and take punishment aggression, violence and nastiness, lying down.
He even gave advice on what to do with an "unwanted gift"....

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn07/sn07.002.than.html

Jason

"Turning the other cheek" actually is an act of defiance, not of pacifism.

I've heard that before, and I think it's interesting to view Jesus as being more subversive and tactical in this passage than simply pacifistic. This would also seem consistent with the Jesus we see throwing over the tables of the money changers in Mt 21:12. However, even such an act of defiance is a type of nonviolent resistance, and could still have been motivated by Jesus' pacifism if he indeed was a pacifist, as some people have surmised from his Sermon on the Mount (e.g., "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God," etc.). The two (i.e., defiance and pacifism) aren't mutually exclusive.

thickpaper

"Turning the other cheek" actually is an act of defiance, not of pacifism.

I've heard that before, and I think it's interesting to view Jesus as being more subversive and tactical in this passage than simply pacifistic. This would also seem consistent with the Jesus we see throwing over the tables of the money changers in Mt 21:12. However, even such an act of defiance is a type of nonviolent resistance, and could still have been motivated by Jesus' pacifism if he indeed was a pacifist, as some people have surmised from his Sermon on the Mount (e.g., "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God," etc.). The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I think Jesus seem's to have been a dharnma-dude. "Love they enemies" etc.

From what I understand The Talmud also promotes the dharma, even with a Kalma Principle spie, too:

Loving kindness is greater than laws; and the charities of life are more than all ceremonies. - The Talmud (That's so Dharma it needs a mudra!:p )


Deeds of kindness are equal in weight to all the commandments.
The Talmud


High-5

Amelia

"Turning the other cheek" actually is an act of defiance, not of pacifism.

Thanks for the interesting post.

DhammaDhatu

Sanantana (adj.) [for sanātana (cp. purātana); Idg. *seno=Gr. e(/nos old; Sk. sanaḥ in old times; Av. hana old, Lat. seneo, senex ("senile"), senatus; Goth. sineigs old; Oir. sen old] primeval, of old; for ever, eternal D ii.240, 244; S i.189 (cp. K.S. i.321: porāṇaka, santānaŋ vā paṇḍitānaŋ dhamma); DhA i.51.

Simonthepilgrim

"Turning the other cheek" actually is an act of defiance, not of pacifism.

I've heard that before, and I think it's interesting to view Jesus as being more subversive and tactical in this passage than simply pacifistic. This would also seem consistent with the Jesus we see throwing over the tables of the money changers in Mt 21:12. However, even such an act of defiance is a type of nonviolent resistance, and could still have been motivated by Jesus' pacifism if he indeed was a pacifist, as some people have surmised from his Sermon on the Mount (e.g., "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God," etc.). The two (i.e., defiance and pacifism) aren't mutually exclusive.

I would entirely agree, Jason. To take a modern, if fictionalised, example, you may recall the scene in Gandhi where the workers queue up and are serially beaten down. Turning the left cheek (and I see the blow to the right as being dismissive and patronising Roman behaviour towards a despised and occupied bunch of "rag heads") is just so deeply subversive and infuriating. It is a refusal to be a victim.

This is the "loving kindness" that will transform hatred and violence, not by overcoming them but by a sort of alchemy. Mind you, it takes faith because the effects are often two bruised cheeks - at the very least.

Only those who have never been tested ever said that pacifism is a soft option.

thickpaper

Only those who have never been tested ever said that pacifism is a soft option.

A very wise observation methinks:)