Relationships with fools: Interpreting the Dhammapada

Question

Dhammapada Verse 61: If a person seeking a companion cannot find one who is better than or equal to him, let him resolutely go on alone; there can be no companionship with a fool.

This is obviously self preserving pragmatism of the Aesop's Fables variety, it doesn't require a Buddha to say this, so perhaps there is a deeper meaning I don't spot.

Besides, I spot a couple of problems.

One: For me to associate with someone better, that person would have to accept me, his/her inferior. Ergo, one of us must break this rule and accept an inferior (not necessarily a fool) as partner or companion.

Two: This doesn't sound very loving and compassionate. Fools will remain fools without the company of intelligent partners or teachers, is it not? Plus, the Buddha himself tolerated Devadutta and others who were often comically stupid in his order.

The accompanying story of the Thera who blindly trusts his disciples is a little too simplistic, how is it that a senior teacher (Thera) needed to be schooled on such a trivial principle of common sense?

If someone is obviously lazy and scheming, even treacherous, he or she should not be trusted. Did the Thera get undermined by a false sense of duty or compassion?

Answer 1

The verse speaks from the point of view of the bhikku. The verse should be understood properly:

The bad and good bhikkhus were searching for companionship.

They found companionship with Thera.

The bad bhikkhu did not respect Thera, was not obedient and dutiful and was offended and extremely angry when Thera said something to him. Why? Because he thought that Thera was not better or equal to him. Thus, the bad bhikkhu choose a wrong companion. He should have let Thera go on alone and find a companion who is equal or better than him. There can be no companionship with a fool.

The good bhikku was respectful, obedient and dutiful. Why? Because he thought that Thera was equal or better than him. Thus, the good bhikku choose the right companion. He was not in a companionship with a fool.

One: For me to associate with someone better, that person would have to accept me, his/her inferior. Ergo, one of us must break this rule and accept an inferior (not necessarily a fool) as partner or companion.

This rule can apply and not be broken. If a man and a woman are seeking a relationship and they both think about each other as being equal or superior to the other, the relationship/companionship will work. Otherwise it will not work, as one will think about the other being a fool, or both will think about each other being a fool.

If a bhikku is seeking a companionship with a teacher and the bhikku thinks about the teacher being equal or superior to him, the companionship will work. Otherwise it will not work, as the bhikku will think about the teacher being a fool.

Two: This doesn't sound very loving and compassionate. Fools will remain fools without the company of intelligent partners or teachers, is it not? Plus, the Buddha himself tolerated Devadutta and others who were often comically stupid in his order.

The verse speaks from the point of view of the bhikku, not from the point of view of Thera/teacher.

If we were to apply this verse as you’re suggesting, then the Buddha would never have taught the Dhamma to people obviously inferior to him, or less developed than him. Or if we were to apply this verse as you’re suggesting, then the Buddha is contradicting himself. But he is not, which can be clearly seen by his actions - he thought the Dhamma, even to fools.

Answer 2

This is obviously self preserving pragmatism

No. It's a Sila, Samadhi, Panna preserving and improving principle. It is very conducive to the practice of the noble eightfold path.

ex: The right effort

(1) to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states;

(2) to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen;

(3) to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen;

(4) to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen.

A person who is your equal will help you maintain your wholesome qualities and alert you when you start to let your standards slip.

A person who is higher than you will help you abandon your unwholesome states and help you develop new wholesome qualities as well as perfect your current standards.

So such persons are worthy of being considered as friends. But a fool is not worthy of being considered as a friend as he would only hinder your right effort and drag you down.

For me to associate with someone better, that person would have to accept me, his/her inferior. Ergo, one of us must break this rule...

Not necessarily. You can help someone to get better by giving him good advice. That doesn't make him your friend. That makes him your student or someone you practice compassion on. The other might consider you as a teacher or just a friend. But you don't follow him or participate in unworthy activities he might engage in. A monk might advise many lay people on a daily basis. That doesn't make them his friends.

This doesn't sound very loving and compassionate. Fools will remain fools...

Someone need not be your friend for you to practice compassion towards him or her. The Buddha did not seek companionship with those whom he helped to become liberated. It was always an act of compassion. Kesi Sutta explains how the Buddha dealt with those who are too haughty to give up their unwholesome ways:

"But if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. His knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing."

Buddha himself tolerated Devadatta and others

Tolerating is not the same as making friends with someone. You can tolerate a dog barking while you try to listen to something. That doesn't make the dog your friend.

The accompanying story of the Thera who blindly trusts his disciples is a little too simplistic

Venerable Maha Kassapa is not trusting the disciple. He's simply trying to make him better. But only the Buddha could definitely know if someone cannot be helped. Who would've thought that Angulimala and the demon Alavaka could be helped?

Did the Thera get undermined by a false sense of duty or compassion

No. Venerable Mahakassapa was an Arahanth. So his association with the student did not undermine him as he can never fall back. Lord Buddha probably used this as a pretext to give this sermon to the other good student. As you can see, he attained the state of Sotapatti after listening to it.

Answer 3

I think part of the problem is the translation as fools. Eknath Easwaran translates this as spiritually immature. In the introduction to chapter six of the Dhammapada in his translation he says

The title of chapter 5 is normally translated as "The Fool". [...]. However bala means not only "fool" but "child"

For me the term fool is ladened with harsh feeling and judgement. If I call someone "a fool" the chances are that I'm not speaking kindly. However if I think of a child then my heart goes out to that being. I might not want to spend time with the child playing childish games (well not all the time) but I want the best for them and I think kindly of them.

I am no Pali language expert so I can't speak to the accuracy of this translation. But when I'm reading this chapter the term fool doesn't seem helpful. Spiritual immature (or even child) helps me connect with the verses much better.

Answer 4

In the original language, the word used is 'bala' or child, closer to immature than to fool, or better understood as in a phrase such as "the foolishness of youth." There is a kindness to it; we have all played the fool at some point or another, and can be fooled by honest misperceptions and misunderstandings as well as by malice.

The seeker in this case is one seeking wisdom. The point is that if you are a seeker of wisdom, find someone wise/ mature.

The seeker is not inferior; merely we are at an earlier stage of development in this moment. In a later verse, you might find the comparison between how a spoon experiences soup vs. how one's tongue experiences soup. The seeker is one who is not wise, but wishes to be wise, just as the tongue wishes to appreciate the soup. The very immature are not seeking wisdom. They can memorize fables of either Aesop or the Buddha without gaining any wisdom at all, just as a wooden spoon can only hold soup, not appreciate it. They are fooled by the simple story of a fable, not appreciating its hidden moral.

A wise person can learn from a fool and their errors, certainly, as we can learn from children and their innocence, but this is not in a full partnership, as I think the verses are implying that one should seek in a companion.

I hope you find this helpful.

Answer 5

You are not taking the whole of Buddhist teaching at this point. On the journey from unwiseness to being wise, each new insight obtained is good, but does not mean there is not more to learn.

This very verse, as much of the dhammapada is, teaches from the view of an unwise beginner. The course involves all teachings, even beginner ones.

Firstly, this teaching is one you already know, and find silly as a teaching. My experience is also that the teachings I understand, once learned with wisdom, are obvious. Such reasons are why when someone acts like they do not understand an insight but really do, they are wasting not only their time, but mine as well. Especially when their deception is very hard to discern, like in an online forum. But since not lying is a principle foundation of Buddhism, one would be highly unlikely to encounter such an instance of someone acting with such gross neglect of foundational principles and expect to be taken seriously as a sincere practitioner.

Secondly, the basis of this teaching involves something that later on in the practice, you actually escape from in terms of your relationship to worldview. It involves a comparison from one person to another, which is useful at the point in progress of this verse, which teaches one's awareness of others as well as self in terms of their wisdom, morals and insights. But ultimately this fetter gets abandoned. That another being is another being never gets abandoned, but holding a view does.

They will not advance with you, they will not support your practice, they will not allow you to grow.

Other verses clearly go into self-growth as not only important, but necessary. The end of suffering is not a group activity. It is self-realized. People devoted to the practice, practice alone even when in a group.

One can act with compassion many ways. One might be able to feed someone starving, but not teach them dhamma. This verse does not defy compassion. I don't have the accompanying story, just going by other's words.

It is possible to create causes and conditions wherein the escape of suffering is not possible. Like when you kill another being. Or if you imprison another being. Or maim someone, eg: someone in a coma is not freed from suffering. Lies can also create such rampant bad karma.