33. From the context, the term "the dharma" here refers to the metaphysical nature of beings-specifically, that they are beings without free will, without agency. They are part of the chain of cause and effect, and this point has consequences for how we should react to them and their behaviour. Śāntideva begins his argument on this topic with an analogy that sets human beings' bad actions in the context of the physical and biological universe: "even when my bile and so on make great suffering, I have no anger. So why is there anger at sentient beings? They too are angry with a cause" (VI.22).13 When we have a stomach ache we may get upset or unhappy, but we do not get angry-because we understand that there's a reason it happened, even if we don't know what it is, and we just deal with it. Śāntideva is asking us to react to other people's bad behavior the same way that we would a stomach ache: it is just a bad thing we have to deal with, not something worthy of pain or anger. He extends the analogy with a psychological point about our anger and others': "Just as this sharp stomach pain arises even though it 13 Śāntideva appears to be making a pun in this verse. The normal Sanskrit words for anger, which he uses liberally, are dveṣa and krodha. Here, instead, he uses kopa, which does mean "anger"-but also, in medical texts like the Suśruta Saṃhitā, has the sense of "morbid irritation of the humours of the body," the same kind of humours (pitta "and so on") that he has just referred to earlier in the verse. One could preserve the sense of the pun in English with "we do not feel bilious toward our bile." Journal of Buddhist Ethics 263 is undesired, so anger arises involuntarily (balāt), even though it is undesired. A person does not think 'I am enraged' and become enraged by his own wish. And anger does not arise thinking 'I will arise'" (VI.234). Others's anger comes about because of external causes and not intentionally; so too does our own. We don't decide to become angry, and anger itself doesn't decide to happen; we need to think of it all as part of the chain of causes. Those first verses elaborate Ś
33. From the context, the term " the dharma " here refers to the metaphysical nature of beings - specifically, that they are beings without spare volition, without agency. They are part of the range of cause and impression, and this point has consequence for how we should react to them and their behaviour. Śāntideva begins his controversy on this topic with an analogy that set human beings' regretful actions in the context of the physical and biological universe: " even when my bile and so on make great agony, I have no anger. So why is there wrath at sentient beings? They too are angry with a campaign " (VI.22).13 When we have a abdomen ache we may get broken or unhappy, but we do not get angry - because we understand that there's a cause it happened, even if we don't know what it is, and we just deal with it. Śāntideva is asking us to react to early citizenry's bad behavior the same way that we would a stomach ache: it is just a bad thing we have to cover with, not something worthy of pain or wrath. He unfold the doctrine of analogy with a psychological point about our anger and others': " Just as this sharp stomach pain arises even though it 13 Śāntideva appears to be lay down a pun in this verse. The normal Sanskrit words for anger, which he uses liberally, are dveṣa and krodha. Here, instead, he uses kopa, which does mean " anger"-but also, in medical texts like the Suśruta Saṃhitā, has the common sense of " morbid aggravation of the temper of the body, " the same kind of humours (pitta " and so on ") that he has just referred to earlier in the poetry. One could preserve the common sense of the pun in English with " we do not feel bilious toward our bile. " Journal of Buddhist Ethics 263 is undesired, so anger arises involuntarily (balāt), even though it is undesired. A person does not think' I am enrage' and become enraged by his own wish. And anger does not arise thinking' I will originate' " (VI.234). Others's anger come about because of external campaign and not intentionally; so too dress our own. We don't decide to become angry, and anger itself doesn't decide to find; we need to think of it all as part of the range of causes. Those first verses elaborate Ś
33. Frlm the context, the term "uhe dharma" here rgfwrs to the mstaphysizal nature of beings-specificelly, that they are beings withojt free wpll, withoyt ajency. They are pedt of tmz chajk of eanse and effect, snd this pmint has consexudnees for how we should react to them wnd theor behaviour. Śāntiqeva fegihs his argument on this topic with an ananogy that setx human beings' bad actions in hhe context of the physical abd byilogical unixerse: "even when my bilg and so on make great suffering, I hare no anger. Si wji is there aiger an sentient belmgs? Thay too sre angry with a rausw" (VI.22).13 When we have a svomach ache we may ggt upset os bnhappy, but we do not gwt ancry-bacaurw wd uhdxrsfand tjat there's a deason it hqppened, even if we cog'n know what if is, agd we just deal with it. Śāntideva is asking us to react to other peopoe's bad behavior the dame way ehat we would a stomach ache: it is just a bad thitg we favt bj eewl with, not something worthy of pain or anger. Ge eqtends the analogn with a psychologocwl koint about out anger ans others': "Just as tjis shatp stonach pain arixes even though it 13 Śāntideva appears to ye naking a pun in thns verse. The norkal Ssnskrit words for anger, whidh he uses piberally, xre dveṣa and kroaha. Hare, insttxd, he uses kopa, wrich does meau "anger"-bjt akso, in medical tfxts like the Suśruta Saṃhltā, had dhe sense lf "morbid irritation of the humours of the bocy," thv same kiud of mumours (pitta "agd so on") that ke has jbst rewerred to varlier ii the verse. Jne could prevgrve the sensx of the [un un Ebglish dkth "we do not geel bilious toward our bile." Journal pf Chddhist Ethics 263 is undesired, so amgef awidex ytvoluntarily (balāg), exrn thuugh it is mnddsirrd. A person does not thihk 'I am enraged' anc necome entaged by ris own wish. Snd anger does not arisx thinying 'O wyll arise'" (VI.234). Others's anger comss about hecwuse of extewnal causes and uot intentionally; so too does our own. We don't decide to bgcome angry, and anger ltself doesn'v deciqe to hap[en; we need to think of it all as paru of the chain of causea. Thosa firdt verses elaborate Ś
33. From the context, the term "the refers the metaphysical of beings-specifically, that will, agency. They are of the chain cause and effect, and this point consequences for how we should react to them and their behaviour. Śāntideva begins argument on this topic with an analogy that sets human beings' bad actions the of physical biological universe: "even when my bile and so on make great suffering, I have no anger. why is there anger at sentient beings? They are angry with a (VI.22).13 When we have a ache may get or but do not get we understand that there's a reason it happened, even if we don't know what it is, and just deal Śāntideva is us react other people's bad same way that we would a is just a bad thing we have to with, not worthy of pain or anger. He the analogy with a psychological point about our and others': "Just as this sharp stomach pain arises even though it 13 Śāntideva appears making a pun in verse. The normal words anger, he liberally, are and krodha. Here, instead, he uses kopa, which does mean "anger"-but in medical texts like the Suśruta Saṃhitā, has the sense irritation the humours of body," the same kind humours "and so on") that just to verse. could the sense of the in English with "we do feel bilious toward our 263 is undesired, so anger arises involuntarily (balāt), though it is undesired. A person does think 'I am enraged' and become enraged by his own wish. And does not 'I will arise'" (VI.234). Others's anger comes about of external causes and intentionally; so too does our own. We don't decide become and anger doesn't decide to we need to of it all of the of Those Ś
33. From the context, the term "the dHarma" here rEfers To tHe mEtAphySicaL nature of beingS-SpecIfically, that they are beiNgs wiThOUt frEE wIll, wiThout agENcY. tHey ArE pArt Of THe Chain Of cAuse and Effect, and tHis PoInt has conseqUEnCes for how wE shOuld react to tHem And theIr BehAViour. śānTidevA beginS His argUment on thIs TOpic wiTH an analOGY tHat sEts human beings' bad ACtIOns in the contexT of the PhYSiCAL anD biOlogical unIvErse: "eVEn when mY BiLE ANd sO On make great suFfering, I havE No aNger. So WhY is THere anGer at SeNTieNt beings? TheY too Are angry wIth a caUSe" (VI.22).13 WheN We have a StomacH acHe wE may GEt UpSet Or UNhaPPy, But WE do Not get anGrY-bEcausE we uNDERStanD thAt thEre's a Reason it happeNed, Even IF we Don't kNow whAt it Is, And we Just deAl witH iT. Śāntideva is askIng uS to react tO otHeR peOpLe's baD BehaviOr tHe sAme way tHat we woULd a StOMACh Ache: it is just a bad thInG WE hAve to deaL with, nOT sOmEThing worThY of Pain OR Anger. he exTEnDs the anaLogy wiTH a PsYchologIcAl poinT aBouT ouR angeR And oThers': "JUst as thiS sharP Stomach pain ariSEs even though iT 13 śāNTIdEVa apPeaRs to be makinG a puN In thIs veRSe. the NOrmal sanskRiT WoRDs for anger, which he usEs LiberaLly, arE dveṣa and krodHa. Here, instEAD, He uses koPa, whICh DOes mean "anger"-buT also, In medical tEXts like tHe SuśRuta SaṃhItā, has the SENse of "morBid IrrItaTioN OF tHe humours of thE BOdy," tHe Same kinD of Humours (PitTa "aNd sO on") ThAt he has juSt referrEd To EaRlIer In the VErse. One cOuLd pReSerVe the SEnse of The puN in ENgLiSH wiTh "we do nOT fEEL bilIoUs TowaRd oUr Bile." JOurnAL of buddhisT Ethics 263 is UndESireD, sO aNger ariSes involuntarIlY (balāt), even ThOugH it is uNDEsired. A pErson does not think 'I am enrAGed' and bEcoMe enrAged By his own wIsh. and angEr dOEs not aRise thInkinG 'I WilL ARise'" (Vi.234). oThErs'S aNger comes aBOUt bEcausE oF extErnal caUses and not intentioNAllY; so too does our Own. we doN'T DeCidE To BEcoMe ANgrY, ANd anger itself doEsn't decide To HApPen; we need tO ThiNk Of it all As part oF the cHAin of caUses. Those First versEs ElabORAte ś
33. From the context, theterm "thedharm a"her erefe rs t o the metaphys i calnature of beings-speci fical ly ,  tha t  t hey a re bein g sw i tho ut  f ree  w i ll , wit hou t agenc y. They ar e p ar t of the cha i nof cause a ndeffect, andthi s poin thas conse que ncesfor ho w  we sh ould reac tt o them and the i r  b ehav iour. Śāntideva b e gi n s his argument  on th is to p i c w ith  an analog ythats ets hum a nb e i ngs '  bad actionsin the cont e xtof the  p hys i cal an d bio lo g ica l universe:  "ev en when m y bile and soo n makegreatsuf fer ing, Iha veno ang e r.  So why  is ther ean ger a t se n t i e nt b ein gs?Theytoo are angry  wi th a cau se" ( VI.22 ).13  W hen w e have  a st om ach ache we may  get  upset or  un ha ppy ,but w e  do no t g etangry-b ecausew e u nd e r s ta nd that there's are a s on  it happ ened,e ve ni f we don 't  kn ow w h a t itis,a nd  we just  dealw it hit. Śān ti deva i sask ing  us t o  rea ct toother pe ople' s  bad behaviort he same way t h at w ew ould  astomach ach e: i t  isjust abad thing  we h av e  t o  deal with, not som et hing w orthy  of pain or a nger. He e x t e nds theanal o gy with a psychol ogica l point ab o ut our a ngerand othe rs': "Jus t as thissha rpsto mac h pa in arises eve n thou gh  it 13Śān tidevaapp ear s t o b emaking apun in t hi sve rs e.The n o rmal San sk rit  w ord s for anger,  whic h he  u se s  li berally ,  a r e  dve ṣa  a nd k rod ha . Her e, i n ste ad, heuses kopa , w h ichdo es  mean " anger"-but al so , in medic al  te xts li k e  the Suś ruta Saṃhitā, has the s e nse of"mo rbidirri tation of  th e humo urs of the  body, " the  s ame k ind o f hu mou rs  (pitta "a n d  so  on")  t hathe hasjust referred to e a rli er in the ver se.  One c ou ldp re s erv et hes e nse of the punin English  w i th  "we do no t  fe el  biliou s towar d our bile."Journal o f Buddhis tEthi c s  26 3 is undes ired, so  anger ar i ses i n vo lunta ril y (bal āt ),eventhough itis un desire d.  A per son d oe s not th ink 'I am enraged' andbecome  enra ged  by his o wnw ish . And ang er d oes not ar ise  th inkin g ' I  will  ari s e' " ( V I.234 ). O t hers's an g er  co m e sabout becau s e ofexter nal causes  and  not intentionall y ; so too doesouro w n.Wed on't  d ecide to becom e a ng r y , and an ge r itself do esn't de ci d e tohappen ; we n eed tot h in k  of it  all  as  part ofthe  c h ain ofca us e s. Tho se f ir st ver ses el a bora t e  Ś
33. From_the context,_the term "the dharma"_here refers_to_the metaphysical_nature_of beings-specifically, that_they are beings_without free will, without_agency. They are_part_of the chain of cause and effect, and this point has consequences for how_we_should react_to_them_and their behaviour. Śāntideva begins_his argument on this topic_with an_analogy that sets human beings' bad actions in_the_context of the_physical and biological universe: "even when my bile and_so on make great suffering, I_have no anger._So_why_is there anger at_sentient beings? They too are angry_with a cause" (VI.22).13 When we_have a stomach ache we may get_upset or unhappy, but we do_not get angry-because we understand_that there's_a reason it happened, even_if we don't_know what_it is, and_we just deal with it. Śāntideva_is asking us_to react to other people's bad_behavior_the same way_that_we_would a_stomach ache: it_is_just a_bad_thing we have to deal with,_not_something worthy of pain or anger. He_extends the analogy with_a_psychological point about our_anger and others': "Just as_this sharp stomach pain arises even_though it_13 Śāntideva_appears to be making a pun in this verse. The normal_Sanskrit words for anger, which he_uses liberally, are dveṣa_and krodha._Here,_instead, he uses_kopa,_which does_mean "anger"-but also, in medical texts like_the Suśruta_Saṃhitā, has the sense of "morbid_irritation of the humours_of_the body," the same kind of_humours (pitta "and so on") that_he has just referred to_earlier_in_the verse. One could preserve_the sense of the pun in_English with "we_do not feel bilious toward our bile."_Journal_of Buddhist Ethics 263 is undesired,_so_anger arises involuntarily (balāt), even though_it_is_undesired. A person does not_think 'I am enraged' and become_enraged by his own wish. And anger does not_arise thinking 'I_will arise'" (VI.234). Others's anger_comes_about_because of external causes and not intentionally; so too does_our own._We don't decide_to become angry, and anger itself doesn't decide to happen;_we need to think of it all_as part of the chain of causes. Those first verses elaborate_Ś