I just stumbled across another reference to the Buddha talking about the practice of pointing out when something attributed to him is not actually something he said.
It’s in a discourse where the Buddha is asked, “How is harmony in the sangha (monastic community) defined?”
The Buddha lists ten activities that go on in the monastic community. These are all potential flash-points because they can create bad feeling and lead to splits in the community.
The ten things are actually five pairs, of which the first, third, and fifth are particularly relevant. These are:
“When a mendicant explains what is not the teaching as the teaching, and what is the teaching as not the teaching.,” and when
“They explain what was not spoken and stated by the Realized One as spoken and stated by the Realized One, and what was spoken and stated by the Realized One as not spoken and stated by the Realized One,” and when
“They explain what was not prescribed by the Realized One as prescribed by the Realized One, and what was prescribed by the Realized One as not prescribed by the Realized One.”
The Buddha (the “Realized One,” or “Tathagata,” in this discourse) often pointed out that clinging to views leads to disputes. When we cling to views and opinions, we get upset when those are contradicted.
If the first practitioner is mindful, and has intellectual integrity, and isn’t clinging to that particular view, then they’ll accept that they were mistaken (hey, it happens to us all). And the community remains in harmony.
If the first practitioner is less mindful, doesn’t have intellectual integrity, and is clinging to that particular view, then they’re not going to be willing to admit that they’ve been mistaken. They might get angry and start accusing their critics of being “narrow-minded,” “egotistical,” of “not understanding the teachings,” that “the Buddha wouldn’t care about being misquoted,” and so on. And what results from this is disharmony.
One of the things that’s implicit here is that the Buddha advocated that the monks and nuns should be checking to see if what was being taught and relied upon was actually what he had taught. So he was, in effect, encouraging the community to weed out Fake Buddha Quotes — as well as encouraging people not to cause disharmony by clinging to those quotes.
I recently found this quote, “Rule your mind or it will rule you,” in a note I’d made to myself over five years ago. (How time flies!) It was posted by a woman I used to follow on the now-defunct (and for me, much-lamented) social media site Google+.
The quote isn’t at all in the style of the Buddhist scriptures, which made me suspicious. Actually I was more than suspicious; I was certain it wasn’t from the Buddha. The style is far too polished and literary, while the Buddhist scriptures tend to be rather clunky.
It only took a few minutes on Google to discover that the true author was (more or less) the Roman poet, Horace, or, to give him his full name, Quintus Horatius Flaccus. It’s derived from a letter he wrote to a friend called Lollius Maximus.
In Latin (and in context) it’s
Ira furor brevis est; animum rege, qui, nisi paret, imperat; hunc frenis, hunc tu compesce catena.
In an 1870 translation by R.M. Millington the quote takes the following form:
Rage is brief madness; so, then, for it is or the slave or lord. Restrain the mind with bridle and with chain.
That “or … or …” construction (presumably corresponding to “either … or …”) sounds very archaic and strange to the modern ear. The title of that book is “The Epistles of Horace in Rhythmic Prose, for the Student.”
H. P. Haughton’s translation (in “The Classical Student’s Translation of Horace,” from 1844), is also rather archaic:
Ire is a brief fury; rule you your mind; which unless it obeys, commands. This do you restrain with curbs, this do you restrain with a chain.
Interestingly, the style there (especially the final sentence) is much closer to what you’ll find in the early Buddhist scriptures.
A more modern translation of the same passage (from David Ferry’s 2001 “The Epistles of Horace”) has:
…A fit of rage
Is a fit of honest-to-goodness genuine madness.
Keep control of your passions. If you don’t,
Your passions are sure to get control of you.
Keep control of them, bridle them, keep them in chains.
I believe the origin of the version we’re discussing here is a 1926 edition of “Putnam’s Complete Book of Quotations, Proverbs and Household Words,” edited by William Gurney Benham. There the quote is given, on page 490, as
Animum rege, qui, nisi paret,
Rule your mind, which, unless it is your servant, is your master.
Horace, Ep., 2, Part 1
Now that’s not the same as the quote in question, which is actually from the index of the book, where references to the actual quotes are arranged by theme. “Rule your mind or it will rule you” is found twice, under “Inclination” and also under “Mind.” The wording given is not meant to be a translation of Horace, but rather a summary of what Horace was saying. In fact the index suggests that this paraphrase also applies to another quote, on page 559, but unfortunately the version of Putnam that I consulted had that page missing (!) so I don’t yet know what other author had expressed the same thought. So “Rule your mind or it will rule you” is a summary or paraphrase of Horace, rather than a direct translation.
Over the next few decades, however, the paraphrase in the index tended to presented as a quote from Horace.
I can’t think of anything the Buddha said that’s a direct parallel to this paraphrase, although he did sometimes compare spiritual training to training an animal. For example in two verses of the Dhammapada he says:
322. Excellent are well-trained mules, thoroughbred Sindhu horses and noble tusker elephants. But better still is the man who has subdued himself.
323. Not by these mounts, however, would one go to the Untrodden Land (Nibbana), as one who is self-tamed goes by his own tamed and well-controlled mind.
In the Anguttara Nikaya he says,
Monks, I know not of any other single thing so conducive to great loss as the untamed mind. The untamed mind indeed conduces to great loss.
Monks, I know not of any other single thing so conducive to great profit as the tamed mind. The tamed mind indeed conduces to great profit.
Another verse from the Dhammapada has:
42. Whatever harm an enemy may do to an enemy, or a hater to a hater, an ill-directed mind inflicts on oneself a greater harm.
So the Buddha seems to have had in mind an understanding not that different from Horace’s, but he doesn’t seem to have expressed it in the same way.
In an extended metaphor, the Buddha said that six wild animals tied together would try to go off in different directions, the overall direction of the six depending on the competing desires and relative strengths of the different beasts. This represents the mind, divided and pulled hither and thither by competing urges arising in the various senses.
Mindfulness acts like a stake to which the six are tied:
“Just as if a person, catching six animals of different ranges, of different habitats, were to bind them with a strong rope. Catching a snake, he would bind it with a strong rope. Catching a crocodile… a bird… a dog… a hyena… a monkey, he would bind it with a strong rope. Binding them all with a strong rope, he would tether them to a strong post or stake.
“Then those six animals, of different ranges, of different habitats, would each pull toward its own range & habitat. The snake would pull, thinking, ‘I’ll go into the anthill.’ The crocodile would pull, thinking, ‘I’ll go into the water.’ The bird would pull, thinking, ‘I’ll fly up into the air.’ The dog would pull, thinking, ‘I’ll go into the village.’ The hyena would pull, thinking, ‘I’ll go into the charnel ground.’ The monkey would pull, thinking, ‘I’ll go into the forest.’ And when these six animals became internally exhausted, they would stand, sit, or lie down right there next to the post or stake. In the same way, when a monk whose mindfulness immersed in the body is developed & pursued, the eye does not pull toward pleasing forms, and unpleasing forms are not repellent. The ear does not pull toward pleasing sounds… The nose does not pull toward pleasing aromas… The tongue does not pull toward pleasing flavors… The body does not pull toward pleasing tactile sensations… The intellect does not pull toward pleasing ideas, and unpleasing ideas are not repellent. This, monks, is restraint.”
If you watch your mind for any length of time in meditation, you’ll notice that it does in fact dart here and there. Staying with the object of the meditation (e.g. the sensations of the breathing) is exceedingly difficult! Mindfulness allows us to notice when the mind has gone this way or that, and to bring it back to the breathing. Since many of the thoughts to which the mind would turn, if unrestrained, would reinforce anxiety, anger, self-doubt, etc., we find ourselves calmer and happier. A mind compassionately and mindfully restrained is a happy mind.
I’ve linked to the fake quotes I’ve already covered on this site. The one I’m dealing with today is one I hadn’t come across before:
“Judge nothing, you will be happy. Forgive everything, you will be happier. Love everything, you will be happiest.”
This quote is in fact compiled from snippets of a poem by Sri Chinmoy (born Chinmoy Kumar Ghose), a post-Hindu teacher who spent most of his adult life in the US and who had a number of famous followers, including the musicians Carlos Santana and John McLaughlin.
I remember when I lived in Glasgow, Scotland, seeing posters for flute concerts that Sri Chinmoy used to give, and I was interested in attending one, although I never quite got around to doing so. Perhaps if I had I’d be blogging on a “Fake Veda Quotes” site right now.
The poem is one of a pair that are together titled “Forgiveness.” Both are found on page 76 of Sri Chinmoy’s book “Happiness,” published by Agni Press in 1994.
The poem in full reads:
You will be happy.
My own personal experience
I am sharing with you.
Try to forgive everything;
You will be happier.
My own personal realisation
I am sharing with you.
You will be happiest.
God’s own personal secret
I am sharing with you.
The Buddha probably would have been scathing had anyone suggested to him that his teaching included the injunction to “judge nothing.” By today’s standards of spiritual discourse he was a judgemental so-and-so. When people misquoted him he’d say something like “Worthless man! From whom did you learn that I taught such a thing?” (Yes, the Buddha didn’t like being misquoted!)
For the Buddha, the ideal was not to abstain from judging, but to judge wisely, as represented by these verses from the Dhammapada:
256. Not by passing arbitrary judgments does a man become just; a wise man is he who investigates both right and wrong.
257. He who does not judge others arbitrarily, but passes judgment impartially according to the truth, that sagacious man is a guardian of law and is called just.
The whole question of what “judging” is is rather unclear. Is it bad to judge? If you answer yes, then you’ve just made a judgement!
One time when I was teaching I had someone who was upset by something I’d said, who pointed their finger at me and actually yelled, “THAT’S JUDGEMENTAL!” Is saying that someone is judgemental judgemental? Presumably yes.
The kind of judging that’s unhelpful is, from a Buddhist point of view, that which is based on craving/attachment, aversion/hatred, and confusion. But recognizing that actions have consequences for good or ill is a foundational principle in Buddhist practice, and this is the kind of “good judging” that the Buddha is encouraging in the Dhammapada verses above.
I’ve linked to the fake quotes I’ve already covered on this site. The one I’m dealing with today:
“Don’t respond to rudeness. When people are rude to you, they reveal who they are, not who you are. Don’t take it personally. Be silent.”
is completely new to me.
It doesn’t seem to be very old. I haven’t found it in any books on Google Books or on Archive.org. It’s not even on many websites. There are really just a few instances on Pinterest and Tumblr, where it starts “Never respond to rudeness…” rather than the “Don’t respond to rudeness…” that Gülen offers us.
The earliest instance of it I’ve found is on the Lifehack site, where the graphic embedding the quote is dated April, 2014. It may be older, though.
Although the quote is definitely not from the Buddha, it’s very much in line with his teachings. In the discourse (sutta) in which the Buddha teaches the famous Parable of the Saw he says:
They may address you in an affectionate way or a harsh way … They may address you with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. In any event, you should train yourselves: ‘Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic to that person’s welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading him with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with him, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.’
The Buddha offers more advice on how to handle criticism in the Brahmajala Sutta:
“Mendicants, if others criticize me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, don’t make yourselves resentful, bitter, and exasperated. You’ll get angry and upset, which would be an obstacle for you alone. If others were to criticize me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, and you got angry and upset, would you be able to understand whether they spoke well or poorly?”
“If others criticize me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, you should explain that what is untrue is in fact untrue: ‘This is why that’s untrue, this is why that’s false. There’s no such thing in us, it’s not found among us.’”
And lastly, the Buddha once demonstrated through his actions how to deal with criticism when a priest bombarded him with insults. First he asks the priest (brahmin) if he offers treats to guests who visit him (and you can imagine the priest thinking, “What? This has to be a set-up of some kind!”):
“Yes, Gotama, sometimes I do offer them snacks or food or tidbits.”
“But if, brahman, they do not accept it, who gets it?”
“If Gotama, they do not accept it, I get it back.”
“Even so, brahman, you are abusing us who do not abuse, you are angry with us who do not get angry, you are quarreling with us who do not quarrel. All this of yours we don’t accept. You alone, brahman, get it back; all this, brahman, belongs to you.”
Basically, the Buddha says, the priest’s insults are about him, not about the Buddha, who he is insulting. This is very close in meaning to the quote above.
By way of a bonus, Günel offers three other quotes, all of which are fake too:
I seem to have made an entry into the world of fiction. A book I read recently — “Dark Path,” by Melissa F. Miller — happens to have a Buddhist protagonist called “Bodhi.”
I, of course, am a Buddhist called Bodhi.
This fictional Bodhi is Dr. Bodhi King, who is a forensic examiner. He’s a lanky, long-haired fellow who meditates and occasionally dispenses advice about mindfulness. The physical description is reminiscent of me twenty years ago.
Please note, in the photograph below, the shoulder-length hair I sported back in 1999. And although there’s no way to assess my height from the photograph, I am six feet tall and was, at that time, skinny enough to be termed “lanky.”
I’ve never been a forensic examiner, although I do have a degree in medicine (veterinary, though, not human).
No, I don’t think that Melissa F. Miller based her character on me. But I’m 100% confident that she took some of the Buddha quotes in the novel from two of my websites, including this one.
But first, I was delighted that there weren’t any Fake Buddha Quotes in the book! Many fiction authors, I’ve found, aren’t particularly good researchers. If they want to make a character appear wise, they simply grab something from a quote site and off they go. If they’re inclined to do a little “fact-checking” they’ll confirm that the quote in question can also be found on another quote site, and maybe a Facebook page or two. Of course is it’s on Facebook it must be true.
Miller, to her great credit, doesn’t put any Fake Buddha Quotes in her hero’s mouth.
Even more to her credit, she uses genuine quotations the headings for some chapters of the book. She even provides scriptural citations for those quotes. While most writers are happy to dangle the word “Buddha” at the end of their quotes, Miller gives the names of suttas. For example, here’s one quote she uses, accompanied by its attribution:
Ardently do today what must be done. Who knows? Tomorrow, death comes.
The Buddha, Bhaddekaratta Sutta
It can’t be a coincidence that every single quote she uses is found either on this site or on RealBuddhaQuotes.com (the sibling site to this one), that the wording in every one of the quotes is identical to what’s found on those sites, and that, similarly, the attributions are identically worded as well.
So I congratulate Ms. Miller on her diligent research. The only thing she didn’t do was give my Real Buddha Quotes or Fake Buddha Quotes sites any acknowledgement, but I can forgive that.
One slightly jarring note in the novel was a description of Bodhi King meditating:
Her eyes drifted up to the rearview mirror and she checked on Bodhi. He appeared to be meditating. His head was unbent and his eyes were closed. His hands rested on his thighs and his forefingers and thumbs met in two ovals. His lips were not moving, but she could have sworn she heard a vibrating sound coming from his throat.
The whole “meditating with the forefingers and thumbs making circles on the knees” thing is such a stereotype — and an inaccurate one at that. Any time I look for stock photos of people meditating, there it is. And yet I don’t think I’ve ever once, in almost 40 years of meditating, seen a Buddhist adopt that hand gesture.
The most common position for the hands in Buddhism is “dhyana mudra” (literally “meditation hand-position”) with the hands resting in the lap, the fingers of the right hand on top of the fingers of the left, with the tips of the thumbs touching.
There are four other books in the Bodhi King series, and I’m curious to know if Miller uses any more quotes from my website in them. I’m unlikely to read them to find out, though. Miller is a pretty good writer, but her style isn’t my cup of tea. If you happen to have copies, please let me know!
Here’s a complete list of the quotes that Miller borrows, with links to the Fake and Real Buddha Quotes sites:
PPS: My name does actually appear in a novel written by a former meditation student of mine, Penelope J. Holt, who borrowed it for the name of a character who was a Buddhist monk. The book is called “The Painter’s Gift.” Penelope was kind enough to send me a copy when the book was published.
A friend recently asked me about this quote — “Of all footprints, that of the elephant is supreme. Similarly, of all mindfulness meditation, that on death is supreme” — because she’s scrupulous about sourcing her attributions. I saw nothing suspicious about the quote at all but I like to help out a Dharma sister and so I went hunting.
The quote is very much in keeping with the style and content of the early scriptures, but I couldn’t find anything corresponding to this in either Access to Insight or, more tellingly, in Sutta Central. So it didn’t seem to come from the Pali sources.
Of course the Pali texts aren’t the only early Buddhist scriptures. There are many early texts that were translated into Chinese or Tibetan that aren’t found in the Pali Tipitaka, and there are early texts in Sanskrit and other Indian languages as well, although those tend to be fragmentary. And it’s possible that this quote might be found in one of those collections. (Despite some claims to the contrary, those texts are just as ancient as the Pali texts, and have an equal claim to represent what the Buddha taught.)
I did find the origins of the quote, however. It comes from the Sanskrit Mahaparinirvana Sutra (“the teaching on the great decease of the Buddha”). Now, you might assume that this is a Sanskrit version of the Pali Mahaparinibbana Sutta, which describes the Buddha’s last days and his death, but actually it’s a much later teaching, probably composed around the second century of the Common Era. It’s a Mahayana sutra, the Mahayana being a collection of schools that emphasized different things in order to reform Buddhism away from a narrow, monastic, scholarly interpretation of practice. Some emphasized a more devotional approach to practice, or emphasized compassion, or placed more emphasis on meditation, or explored (or perhaps even preserved) the Buddha’s teachings on emptiness.
In Mark L. Blum’s translation of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra the same passage is translated as: “World-Honored One, just as among the footprints of all living beings there is nothing that surpasses the footprint of an elephant, so too is the concept of impermanence paramount among all concepts.”
In Kosho Yamamoto’s translation, it’s “Just as all beings leave behind footprints and the best of all footprints are those of the elephant, so with this thought of the non-Eternal: it heads all thoughts.”
So far I haven’t found which translation the version “Of all footprints, that of the elephant is supreme. Similarly, of all mindfulness meditation, that on death is supreme” comes from.
Now, the reason I’m saying this is likely to be a Fake Buddha Quote is not because it comes from a Mahayana Sutra — I’ve pointed out before that my criteria for accepting a quote as valid is that it’s from a canonical scriptural source. And this one is from a canonical scriptural source, so what’s the problem? Well, the problem is that the quote, in the context of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, isn’t spoken by the Buddha, but is said to him by some unnamed monks. Since it’s not presented in the Sutra as something the Buddha said, it can’t be a Buddha quote.
This is something that a number of people, seeing that the quote comes from a Sutra, have missed. For example in one Lion’s Roar article, we read “The Buddha himself left behind such a statement. ‘Of all the footprints,’ he said, ‘that of the elephant is supreme. Similarly, of all mindfulness meditation, that on death is supreme.'” Similarly, in Tricycle magazine an author says: “‘Of all footprints, that of the elephant is supreme,’ declared the Buddha in the Great Nirvana Sutra. ‘And of all mindfulness meditation, that on death is supreme.'” And the same error has been made in a number of books.
Glenn H. Mullin takes a more careful approach in his book, “Living in the Face of Death”:
It is said in The Sutra of Buddha’s Entering into Parinirvana: “Of all footprints, That of the elephant is supreme. Similarly, Of all mindfulness meditations, That on death is supreme.”
I can well imagine the Buddha saying something like this quote. Perhaps he did! But unless it shows up in some scripture, attributed to him, then we shouldn’t describe is as something the Buddha said.
This one just came to my attention today. I spotted it in the feed of a Twitter user who is one of the worst offenders I know of where it comes to passing on Fake Buddha Quotes. As far as I’m aware it doesn’t resemble anything the Buddha is reported to have said in any scripture from any era — and it’s definitely not from the early scriptures, which are our best bet for an accurate representation of what the Buddha literally said.
It’s yet another quote taken from the Japanese book, “The Teaching of Buddha,” which is a Gideon Bible–like publication found in hotel bedrooms throughout Japan and published by Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai. There have been many, many editions of the book.
A fuller version of the quote reads:
It is the everlasting and unchanging rule of this world that everything is created by a series of causes and conditions and everything disappears by the same rule; everything changes, nothing remains without change.
It would be impossible to summarize here the Buddha’s teachings on change, impermanence, or inconstancy (anicca). But his approach was ruthlessly practical, and focused on how our inability to deal with the fact of change causes us suffering, and how we can find eace by learning to accept change.
If we are like rock and something cuts into us, it will leave its mark, perhaps for generations to come.
If we become like sand and something cuts into us, it will leave its mark, but soon that mark will be gone.
And, if we become like water and something cuts into us, as soon as the mark appears, it will disappear, forever.
So far I’ve only seen it on a website connected with the Alexander Technique (which I understand is a kind of posture alignment therapy). The site says that this is a quote from the “Sukha Sutta.”
I recognize the canonical basis of the quote, but the original is rather different. I’m going to quote the entire sutta here:
Mendicants, these three people are found in the world. What three? A person like a line drawn in stone, a person like a line drawn in sand, and a person like a line drawn in water. And who is the person like a line drawn in stone? It’s a person who is often angry, and their anger lingers for a long time. It’s like a line drawn in stone, which isn’t quickly worn away by wind and water, but lasts for a long time. In the same way, this person is often angry, and their anger lingers for a long time. This is called a person like a line drawn in stone.
And who is the person like a line drawn in sand? It’s a person who is often angry, but their anger doesn’t linger long. It’s like a line drawn in sand, which is quickly worn away by wind and water, and doesn’t last long. In the same way, this person is often angry, but their anger doesn’t linger long. This is called a person like a line drawn in sand.
And who is the person like a line drawn in water? It’s a person who, though spoken to by someone in a rough, harsh, and disagreeable manner, still stays in touch, interacts with, and greets them. It’s like a line drawn in water, which vanishes right away, and doesn’t last long. In the same way, this person, though spoken to by someone in a rough, harsh, and disagreeable manner, still stays in touch, interacts with, and greets them. This is called a person like a line drawn in water. These are the three people found in the world.
So this quote is quite specifically about anger, and how we can relate to it in different ways. It doesn’t have anything to do with posture. It’s not from the Sukha Sutta, but the Lekha Sutta, the word “lekha” here meaning “inscription.” Perhaps someone misread lekha for sukha.
I don’t know where this adapted quote originated. Perhaps it’s in some publication that hasn’t yet been scanned by Google Books or Archive.org. It doesn’t appear to exist elsewhere on the web. It’s possible that the website owner adapted it himself.
A website that linked to me took one of the genuine scriptural quotations on this site and presented it in a misleading way. It then went on to say:
Another quote from the Buddha, that I don’t believe is in dispute, is, “One moment can change a day, one day can change a life, and one life can change the world.”
Of course there is no dispute about whether this is from the Buddha, because it definitely isn’t! This isn’t the kind of thing that you’ll find in the early scriptures.
I’m not entirely sure of its origins. The first mention of it I’ve found is from 2010, where it’s paired with an image of the Buddha, but isn’t presented as being something he said. The context is an ad for the PBS special on the Buddha, which gave us the Fake Buddha Quote “In order to gain anything you must lose everything.
I don’t know whether the PBS advertising team thought that this was a quote from the Buddha—perhaps taken from the internet—or whether they just created the saying as a tag line.
The ad was in “This Old House Magazine” for April 2010. Interestingly, the Buddha did say something in the Dhammapada that was on the theme of old houses:
153. Through many a birth in samsara have I wandered in vain, seeking the builder of this house. Repeated birth is indeed suffering!
154. O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of craving.
This one was just brought to my attention. It’s listed on the badly misnamed “Quotes Master” site as being by the Buddha. It’s not. Neither are many of the quotes you’ll find there.
Let’s talk about prayer. No, let’s have the Buddha talk about prayer. Here’s one good image of the fruitlessness of merely wishing for something:
Suppose a man in need of butter, looking for butter, wandering in search of butter, would sprinkle water on water in a crock and twirl it with a churn-stick. If he were to sprinkle water on water in a crock and twirl it with a churn-stick even when having made a wish [for results]… having made no wish… both having made a wish and having made no wish… neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, he would be incapable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an inappropriate way of obtaining results.
Suppose a man were to throw a large boulder into a deep lake of water, and a great crowd of people, gathering and congregating, would pray, praise, and circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] ‘Rise up, O boulder! Come floating up, O boulder! Come float to the shore, O boulder!’ What do you think: would that boulder — because of the prayers, praise, and circumambulation of that great crowd of people — rise up, come floating up, or come float to the shore?
In the same way, any brahmans or contemplatives endowed with wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood, wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, & wrong concentration: If they follow the holy life even when having made a wish [for results]… having made no wish… both having made a wish and having made no wish… neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they are incapable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an inappropriate way of obtaining results.
To the Buddha, it was what we do that’s important. If you do the right things, you’ll get results.
I don’t know how this quote came to be. Possibly it was assembled from fragments, which would explain its lack of parallelism: there’s no real connection between invisibility/visibility and possibility/impossibility. “Faith and prayer are invisible” is found in an 1884 book by the Rev. Francis John Scott, called “The Light of Life.” “Prayer will make impossible things possible” is found in James Endell Tyler’s “Meditations From the Fathers of the First Five Centuries,” which was published in 1849. But the complete quote seems fairly new; one of the earliest dated examples I’ve found on the web is from 2012.
Osho said “believing can make impossible things possible” (The Wisdom of the Sands, Vol. 2) but I haven’t found anything in his writings that corresponds to the first part of the quote.