don’t treat your own with scorn,
don’t go coveting those of others.
A monk who covets those of others
For some reason the translator has taken “na atimabbeyya” (one should not despise, slight, or neglect) to mean “one should not overrate,” thus reversing the meaning of the original.
I don’t know who the translator was, but the earliest instance of this quote that Ive found on Google Books is in a 1956 book called “The Wisdom of the Living Religions,” by Joseph Gaer. Unfortunately Google Books doesn’t let me look inside the book, even to see a snippet.
Today a non-Buddhist friend, trembling no doubt at the thought of incurring my wrath and scorn by posting a quotation erroneously attributed to the Buddha, asked me on Twitter whether “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth” was a genuine Buddha quote.
This is an interesting one. I’ve seen it around a lot on quotes sites and in books, mostly attributed to the Buddha (but once to Confucius and another time to Colin Powell) and it’s never rung any alarm bells. My instant gut response was it sounded like something the Buddha might have said.
In the exact form given above, the quote first appears in Google Books in a 2003 work, A Way Forward: Spiritual Guidance for Our Troubled Times, by Anna Voigt and Nevill Drury. The recent provenance made me wonder if this was still a genuine quote (it did more or less ring true), but with altered wording.
I did a bit of digging around and found the canonical original sitting on my bookshelf, in the Pali Text Society’s Gradual Sayings, Volume I. It’s in “The Book of the Threes,” and in full it runs like this:
Monks, there are these three things which are practiced in secret, not openly. What are they?
The ways of womenfolk are secret, not open. Brahmins practice their chants in secret, not openly. Those of perverse views [that’s philosophically rather than sexually perverse views] hold their views secretly, not openly. These are the three things…
Monks, there are these three things which shine forth for all to see, which are not hidden. Which three?
The disc of the moon shines for all to see; it is not hidden. The disc of the sun does likewise. The Dhamma-Discipline [dhamma-vinaya] of a Tathagata [Buddha] shines for all to see; it is not hidden. These are the three things.
For various reasons I prefer Bhikkhu Sujato’s more contemporary (and less misogynistic) translation from Sutta Central:
Mendicants, three things are conveyed under cover, not in the open. What three? Females are married with a veil, not unveiled. Brahmin hymns are conveyed under cover, not openly. Wrong view is conveyed under cover, not in the open. These three things are conveyed under cover, not in the open.
Three things shine in the open, not under cover. What three? The moon shines in the open, not under cover. The sun shines in the open, not under cover. The teaching and training proclaimed by a Realized One shine in the open, not under cover. These three things shine in the open, not under cover.
So “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth” has its origins in a genuine Buddha quote. I’m pleased to have my instincts validated.
However the meaning has been changed. The original quote has nothing to do with things escaping the condition of being hidden, but is to do with the fact that the Buddha’s teaching was not a tradition where secrets are passed on from teacher to student. Instead it’s a tradition where the teachings are openly available for all to see. And it’s not truth generally that the Buddha says is open to view (truths may well be rendered permanently invisible) but the liberating teachings and practices that he offers.
A contracted paraphrase of the canonical version dates at least to the early twentieth century. For example in The Essence of Buddhism by Pokala Lakshmi Narasu (1907) we see:
Three things shine before the world and cannot be hidden. They are the moon, the sun, and the truth proclaimed by the Tathagata
The resemblance is obvious, especially if we highlight the parts that the contemporary quote and the 1907 version have in common: Three things shine before the world and cannot be hidden. They are the moon, the sun, and the truth proclaimed by the Tathagata.
The word order in our suspect quote has been rearranged (we nearly always say “sun and moon,” not “moon and sun”) and the word “long” has been inserted, but otherwise the two versions are identical. The quote in question here is almost certainly an edited version of the Pokala Lakshmi Narasu paraphrase.
Despite the version I was originally asked about having its origins in the scriptures, I can’t accept as a canonical quotation. It’s more in the category of “not particularly accurate paraphrase,” which is why I’ve classed it as “fake-ish.”
Someone recently wrote and asked about a quote he obviously had his suspicions about:
I’ve tried to track down the source of the quote “Be vigilant; guard your mind against negative thoughts” which circulates on the internet, but was not able to. Do you have any clue?
Although this turns out to be a quotation from the Dhammapada, my correspondent was right to be suspicious. As I wrote in reply,
“Negative thoughts” is not an expression the Buddha would have used. It’s possible, though, that this is a paraphrase of “unskillful thoughts” or even “evil thoughts.”
It turns out that this is from Eknath Easwaran’s translation of the Dhammapada. It’s part of verse 327, which is literally “Be devoted to (or take delight in) conscientiousness. Guard your own mind.”
Thanissaro has “Delight in heedfulness. Watch over your own mind.”
Buddharakkhita has “Delight in heedfulness! Guard well your thoughts!”
There’s nothing in here (or in the original Pali) about “negative thoughts,” so Eknath’s translation isn’t very literal. It’s true that in modern parlance it’s negative thoughts (and emotions) that we have to guard against, but since this isn’t terminology that the Buddha would have used I don’t think it’s appropriate to use it in a translation.
Eknath also misses out the element of “delighting” (or being devoted to) heedfulness, which is another distortion introduced into his translation. It does seem a bit sloppy.
Anyway, it’s kind-of-genuine; a not-very-good translation. It’s in the gray area where it’s not so outrageous that it’s definitely fake, but not quite faithful enough to the Pāli for me to consider it as completely genuine. One saving grace is that it’s not terribly misleading. Modern Buddhists, myself included, tend to talk about “negative thoughts” in place of the more traditional “unskillful thoughts” (which requires a bit of explanation to newcomers to Buddhism) or “evil thoughts” (which is a bit offputting!). Presumably Easwaran was simply trying to make the same attempt to use contemporary language, which is a reasonable aim. So I’m giving this one the benefit of the doubt and classifying it as “not fake.”
Incidentally, the “heedfulness” or “vigilance” being encouraged here is “appamāda,” which the PTS Pali dictionary gives as “thoughtfulness, carefulness, conscientiousness, watchfulness, vigilance, earnestness, zeal.” Appamāda is the opposite of pamāda, which means intoxication or heedlessness.
Appamāda is similar to mindfulness (sati), but where sati suggests lucid and receptive awareness, appamāda suggests both that and an active quality of protecting the mind. In the Appamāda Sutta, the Buddha said “Heedfulness is the one quality that keeps both kinds of benefit secure — benefits in this life & benefits in lives to come.” In terms of the Eightfold Path, it seems to combine both Samma Sati (Right Mindfulness) and Sammā Vāyāma (Right Effort), and arguably Sammā Diṭṭhi (Right View) as well.
The Buddha’s last words were an exhortation to practice appamāda, so he must indeed have considered it to be a crucial spiritual practice or faculty.
“Endurance is one of the most difficult disciplines, but it is to the one who endures that the final victory comes.”
This quote is suspect, seeming to have resulted from two separate statements having bee joined together. When I saw the first part I recognized it as stemming from the Dhammapada:
Enduring patience is the highest austerity.
“Nibbana is supreme,” say the Buddhas.
He is not a true monk who harms another,
nor a true renunciate who oppresses others.
So the first line more or less matches the start of the quote, but obviously there’s nothing in here about victory. The Dhammapada does have a few things to say about victory, including that the Buddha’s victory is not turned into defeat (verse 179), and a variant of this saying that no one (not even the gods or Māra) can turn the Buddha’s victory into defeat (verse 105), and also that the Buddha has abandoned victory and defeat (verse 201). But I haven’t found anything in the Dhammapada or elsewhere that corresponds to “it is to the one who endures that the final victory comes.”
There are passages that are somewhat similar to “it is to the one who endures that the final victory comes,” including:
Whoever doesn’t flare up
at someone who’s angry
wins a battle
hard to win.
Thematically, at least, this verse concerns patience and victory.
And there’s a faint resonance of this line in verse 5 of the Dhammapada:
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased.
“Non-hatred” includes patience, and “appeased” could just about be read as “conquered” and so we’re close to the semantic territory of “victory.”
In the Samyutta Nikaya there’s a verse that goes:
The fool thinks victory is won
When, by speech, he bellows harshly;
But for one who understands,
Patient endurance is the true victory.
The last two lines pair patience and victory, and the last line is close enough to “it is to the one who endures that the final victory comes” that I think it’s acceptable as a variant translation.
So both parts of the quote have close parallels in the Pali canon, with “Endurance is one of the most difficult disciplines” corresponding to “Enduring patience is the highest austerity” and “it is to the one who endures that the final victory comes” corresponding to “patient endurance is the true victory.” The variation in wording isn’t too surprising given that the texts have been translated from an Indian language into Chinese or Japanese, and then back into English.
So this quote, taken as a whole, is in a kind of gray area. The parts are more or less genuine, but the seem to have been cobbled together, which makes the quote as a whole suspect (or fake). Where did the cobbling take place?
The full quote is from a Japanese book called Teaching of Buddha, which is the Buddhist equivalent of the Gideon Bible, in that it’s found in hotel bedrooms throughout the world. But it differs from the Gideon Bible in that it’s not a straightforward presentation of scripture. There are, for example, verses like this one, which appear to be a combination of canonical passages and commentary. There are also some parts of Teaching of Buddha that are pure commentary — essays on Buddhism, rather than Buddhist scripture — but in some cases people have been misled by the book’s title into thinking that the commentary is scripture.
It’s possible that in some Far Eastern scripture, these two separate sayings were put together. Sometimes when the Indian texts were translated into Chinese, for example, there would be some rewriting and rearranging. And my position on accepted scripture is that it’s “genuine,” so if this quote does exist in a Chinese version of a sutra then it would be genuine. At the moment it remains suspect.
This is yet another quote from Jack Kornfield’s lovely little volume, Buddha’s Little Instruction Book (page 89). I like Jack’s little book, which is described as a “distillation” and “adaptation” of Buddhist teachings. Many of the sayings in the book seem to be of Jack’s own coinage, but this particular one can be traced back to a canonical source, albeit a Mahayana one.
With a bit of detective work I managed to work out the “chain of custody” behind the words.
So “Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds” is from Buddha’s Little Instruction Book.
This is turn is based on “Neither fire, nor moisture, nor wind can destroy the blessing of a good deed, and blessings benefit the whole world,” which is from the same author’s Teachings of the Buddha (1996), or at least both of these quotes are variants of each other.
These in turn are based on the following quote from Gospel of the Buddha (1894), by Paul Carus: “Neither fire, nor moisture, nor wind can destroy the blessing of a good deed, and it will reform the whole world.”
And that is from a Chinese Sutra called The Sutra of the Questions of the Deva (By Imperial Command Translated From Sanskrit Into Chinese By The Great Tripitakacarya Hsuan-Tsang Of The Tang Dynasty), where we can read (in a modern translation by Bhikkhu Saddhaloka), “”Merit is not burnt by fire, by wind too it cannot be broken asunder, and not by water be rotted, and it is able to sustain the world.”
And this comes from some Sanskrit original, but sadly I don’t know what that is.
The form of the dialog that takes place in the sutra, between a deva (deity) and the Buddha, is very similar to suttas in the Pali Samyutta Nikaya, where there’s one entire section of conversations with Devas, and another with “young devas.” But this exchange doesn’t seem to be present in the Samyutta. It may be present elsewhere in the Tipikata.
Here’s a fuller picture of the Q&A session, again from Saddhaloka’s version:
The deva asked again saying:
“What is the thing that is not burnt by fire, which the wind too cannot break asunder, and not by water can be rotted, and is able to sustain the world? Who can bravely withstand both the king and the thief, and cannot be seized by humans and non-humans?”
The World Honoured One told him saying:
“Merit is not burnt by fire, by wind too it cannot be broken asunder, and not by water be rotten, and it is able to sustain the world. Merit can bravely withstand both the king and the thief, and cannot be taken away by humans and non-humans.”
The reference to fire, water, and wind is a nod to Buddhist cosmology and eschatology, where it’s said that the universe is ended by the actions of those three elements. Although the physical universe can be destroyed, the Buddha appears to be saying, the benefits of our actions will continue. If that sounds puzzling, it’s probably because the end of the universe, in the Buddha’s understanding, is not final. Just as human beings are said to die and be reborn, so too the universe goes through periods of evolution (creation) and involution (destruction). When the universe begins a new process of evolution, beings from the previous version of the universe are reborn there. This is discussed in the Pali Agañña Sutta. Although this sutta is generally held to be satirical, it probably does include something of the Buddha’s understanding of cosmology.
What’s being discussed in this quote is the Buddhist teaching of karma (or kamma, in Pali). Karma simply means “action,” but it’s ethical or unethical action that we’re concerned about. What determines whether our actions are ethical or unethical is the intention (cetana) behind them. When the intention is unskillful (i.e. based on greed, hatred, and delusion) the action that arises is unskillful and leads to pain for ourselves and others). When our intention is skillful, the resulting action is skillful, and the results are a reduction in pain for ourselves and others.
He said, “These are the rewards one can expect when doing what should be done: One doesn’t fault oneself; observant people, on close examination, praise one; one’s good reputation gets spread about; one dies unconfused; and — on the break-up of the body, after death — one reappears in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.”
The Buddha argued against the idea that externalities (purification rituals, prayer, etc.) could affect the course of this dynamic. He said that praying for the good rebirth of someone who has acted unskillfully was as useless as praying that a rock would fall upward.
Not by water is one [ritually] clean,
though many people are bathing here.
Whoever has truth
He’s a clean one;
he, a brahman.
The Buddha’s use of the word “brahman” here refers to his dismissal of another externality — that of birth. The brahmins (or brahmans) regarded themselves as being spiritually superior to the other classes in Indian society. Not so, said the Buddha. People are spiritually superior or inferior due to their acts, not their birth:
“Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes a brahman.
So the quote, although a little opaque, does embody a genuine Buddhist teaching, and it also comes from the (Mahayana) scriptures. The wording is a little condensed and compressed, and the mention of “birth and death” isn’t in the Chinese version, so I’m classifying this as “fakeish” rather than fake or genuine.
This one struck me as suspicious, mainly because of the “no one can and no one may,” which doesn’t strike me as the kind of language the Buddha used. Actually, this turns out to be an example of a translation that is so liberal that the resemblance to the original becomes tenuous.
It’s part of a slightly longer verse passage recorded in an 1894 book, Karma: A Story of Buddhist Ethics, by Paul Carus. In full the quotation is recognizable as having been derived from the Dhammapada:
By ourselves is evil done,
By ourselves we pain endure,
By ourselves we cease from wrong,
By ourselves become we pure.
No one saves us but ourselves.
No one can and no one may.
We ourselves must walk the path:
Buddhas only show the way.
Here’s a more literal translation, from Access to Insight:
165. By oneself is evil done;
by oneself is one defiled.
By oneself is evil left undone;
by oneself is one made pure.
Purity and impurity depend on oneself;
no one can purify another.
You can see a basic similarity, but “no one can and no one may” has been added to flesh out the poetry. Mostly this quote is fine. Yes, we’re responsible for our own actions. The Buddha can’t save us. We have to save ourselves. But “no one may”? That suggests that some external agency forbids others from saving us, which is not a Buddhist notion. “No one can” would have worked well as a translation on its own, but wouldn’t of course fit the rhyming scheme.
“Buddhas only show the way” seems to have been borrowed from another Dhammapada verse (276): “You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way.”
The late 19th century attempt to render the Buddha’s teaching in verse was a noble but of course an unsustainable one. In this case we’ve ended up with a note being injected (“no one may”) which simply doesn’t ring true.
PS. I’m aware that Pure Land Buddhism teaches that enlightenment is only possible through the grace of Amida Buddha, but I think it’s good to acknowledge that this approach contradicts what the Buddha seems to have taught — which is that the Buddhas only point the way, and that we must save ourselves.
Someone on Facebook asked me about this one today:
“Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the single candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”
At first I thought this was a spurious quote, but it does in fact have a canonical origin, although it’s heavily modified. In a Chinese text known as the Sutra of 42 Sections, there’s the following passage:
10. The Buddha said, “Those who rejoice in seeing others observe the Way will obtain great blessing.” A Sramana asked the Buddha, “Would this blessing be destroyed?” The Buddha replied, “It is like a lighted torch whose flame can be distributed to ever so many other torches which people may bring along; and therewith they will cook food and dispel darkness, while the original torch itself remains burning ever the same. It is even so with the bliss of the Way.”
A similar expression is found in the Mahayana Gandhavyuha Sutra, translated by Thomas F. Cleary as “Entry Into the Realm of Reality.” There we find the following:
Just as millions of lamps can be lit from one lamp, without the one lamp being exhausted or diminished by all the lamps taking their flame from it, in the same way from the one lamp of the aspiration for omniscience the lamps of aspiration for omniscience of all buddhas of past, future, and present are lit, yet the one lamp of aspiration for omniscience is not exhausted, and shines undiminished by the lights of the lamps of aspiration to omniscience proceeding from it.
There’s nothing about happiness in here, though. Also, being a Mahayana text, this quote does not come from the historical Buddha, but was composed hundreds of years after his death.
The image is also found in the Vimalakirti Nirdesha, which is a rather wonderful Mahayana Sutra (and thus post-dating the Buddha). Thanks to an astute commenter for bringing that to my attention. In Thurman’s translation the quote is:
Sisters, there is a door of the Dharma called “The Inexhaustible Lamp.” Practice it! What is it? Sisters, a single lamp may light hundreds of thousands of lamps without itself being diminished. Likewise, sisters, a single bodhisattva may establish many hundreds of thousands of living beings in enlightenment without his mindfulness being diminished. In fact, not only does it not diminish, it grows stronger.
The exact wording of our quote, “Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the single candle will not be shortened, comes from a Japanese book on Buddhism called “The Teaching of Buddha.” This book does contain translations of Buddhist sutras, but it also includes a lot of explanatory commentary, of which this is a part.
A fuller version reads:
“An act to make another happy, inspires the other to make still another happy, and so happiness is aroused and abounds. Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the single candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared. Those who seek Enlightenment must be careful of each of their steps. No matter how high one’s aspiration may be, it must be attained step by step. The steps of the path to Enlightenment must be taken in our everyday life.”
This seems to be, in part, a paraphrase of Section 10 of the Sutra of 42 Sections. It’s not an exact translation, but it’s pretty close. It certainly seems to preserve the meaning and the image, even if the exact wording has been tweaked.
The quote “Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the single candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared,” isn’t, I believe, quite close enough to the Sutra of 42 Sections or any of the other sources I’ve found to be considered genuine, so I’ve classed it as “fakeish.”
Several well-known Fake Buddha Quotes originate in this book. The problem may be that quotes appear with the attribution “The Teaching of Buddha,” and people then misinterpret this to mean that they are the “word of the Buddha.”
The Sutra of 42 Sections is said to be a compilation from Indian sources. According to legend, the Emperor Ming sent a delegation west looking for the Buddha’s teachings. The delegation encountered Kasyapa-Matanga and Dharmaraksha in India, and they were brought back to China along with many sutras. The Sutra of 42 Sections was one of the works they translated.
I’m not aware of any text in Pali (or Sanskrit) that corresponds to Section 10. That doesn’t mean that an original didn’t exist. There were originally several different collections of texts in India. What we now call the Pali canon was just one of these, and is significant because it’s so complete. When pilgrims took the teachings to China for translation, it wasn’t just Pali texts that they took with them, and so we often end up with passages in the Chinese Tipitaka (“Three Baskets” – the traditional name for the scriptures) that don’t have any parallels in the Pali texts.
The Buddha did talk about lamps (I’ve never seen any mention of candles, which I don’t think existed) and said things like:
“Just as an oil lamp burns in dependence on oil & wick; and from the termination of the oil & wick — and from not being provided any other sustenance — it goes out unnourished; in the same way, when sensing a feeling limited to the body, he discerns that ‘I am sensing a feeling limited to the body.’ When sensing a feeling limited to life, he discerns that ‘I am sensing a feeling limited to life.’ He discerns that ‘With the break-up of the body, after the termination of life, all that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here.’”
As you can see, this isn’t very pithy or quotable!