Lot of people have written to tell me that the Buddha wouldn’t be at all concerned about being misquoted or having words put in his mouth. Because he was, like, this chill dude who’d say, “Whatever, homie,” or something like that. Apparently the more spiritually advanced you are, the less you’re concerned about things like truth and accuracy.
Anyway, that’s nonsense, which is why I have this series called “The Buddha on Fake Buddha Quotes” where the Buddha makes it clear that him being misquoted is a big deal.
So here’s another one of those.
There’s a sutta in the Numbered Discourses (5.156) called “The Decline of the True Teaching” (Tatiya saddhammasammosa sutta) in which the Buddha says that there are five things that “lead to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching.”
The very first of those five factors that lead to the disappearance of the Dharma is when his teachings are misquoted.
It’s when the mendicants memorize discourses that they learned incorrectly, with misplaced words and phrases. When the words and phrases are misplaced, the meaning is misinterpreted. This is the first thing that leads to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching.
So, once again, yes, the Buddha cared about being misquoted. Is this still a problem today, when the Buddhist scriptures are literally at our fingertips, as long as we have a device that can connect to the world wide web? Apparently yes.
For example, search on Google for “Buddha quotes on anger” and the search engine places these three quotes above the general search results:
- “You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger.”
- “To be angry is to let others’ mistakes punish yourself.”
- “Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.”
Not one of these is from the Buddha.
Search for “Buddha quotes on love” and Google doesn’t pull any quotes out, but the very first site, which should be the most authoritative, has this as the first quote: “In the end, only three things matter: how much you loved, how gently you lived, and how gracefully you let go of things not meant for you.” No, that’s not the Buddha either.
In fact the vast majority of “Buddha quotes” you’ll find on the internet are not from the Buddha.
Really enlightening piece on the importance of accuracy in quoting the Buddha. It’s a refreshing reminder that even in spirituality, truth and precision matter. The example of the sutta emphasizing the consequences of misquoting teachings is a powerful argument against the casual spread of misattributed quotes. It’s fascinating to see how something seemingly small can have a significant impact on the preservation of teachings. Great read for anyone interested in maintaining the integrity of spiritual wisdom!
You realize that things are getting interesting when someone backs up one Fake Buddha Quote by citing another Fake Buddha Quote. You realize a parallel, self-sustaining “Dharma” is appearing that barely intersects with the actual teachings of the early tradition.
Bodhipkasa.
Specifically on the 3rd example – “Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.”
I read a summarized version of the commentary (Attakhata) of the Satipatthana sutta – Six things are helpful in conquering ill-will, the following:
Thus one should consider: “Being angry with another person, what can you do to him? Can you destroy his virtue and his other good qualities? Have you not come to your present state by your own actions, and will also go hence according to your own actions? Anger towards another is just as if someone wishing to hit another person takes hold of glowing coals, or a heated iron-rod, or of excrement. And, in the same way, if the other person is angry with you, what can he do to you? Can he destroy your virtue and your other good qualities? He too has come to his present state by his own actions and will go hence according to his own actions. Like an unaccepted gift or like a handful of dirt thrown against the wind, his anger will fall back on his own head.”
Thanks for this, Adi. I believe the commentary was written by Buddhaghosa, so the similarity to the Visuddhimagga isn’t coincidental.
I’ve been reading your site and a lot of Buddhist scripture. I laughed so hard when I read “Apparently the more spiritually advanced you are, the less you’re concerned about things like truth and accuracy.” I had to laugh or I would cry given that one of the Buddhist precepts is “to abstain from false speech.” Thank you for your diligence in keeping us true to Buddha’s words.
Thank you, Mark.
Bodhipaksa, can you do a piece about the famous Einstein quote that says Buddhism would be the best universal religion? I know it’s fake, but perhaps you know a bit more about it.
Thank you for the suggestion. I remember researching this in the past, but I’ve never written it up. I’ll dig into it again and see what I can come up with. It’ll need to wait for a couple of weeks though, since I’m on a book deadline at the moment. Thanks again!
Hi Bodhipaksa, thank you for all of your work thus far. I come back to your site often time whenever I saw an ambiguous “flowery” worded quotes without reference to Sutta/ Sutra. I also have been looking for definitive proof on Einstein statement and so far I can’t find it. It seems that he never actually said that thing that was often quoted a lot of by a Buddhist, including by a monk that I know. I want to be able to provide him with a more definitive research
Hi, Adi.
Thanks for writing. Is it the Einstein quote about Buddhism being the “religion of the future” that you’re looking for? As far as I can see there’s no basis for believing that Einstein said that. People tend to attribute quotes to famous people to give them more of a sense of authority, and there are many quotes misattributed to Einstein as well as the Buddha. And unfortunately, Buddhists seem as prone as anyone to using quotes without checking their authenticity. The monk you’re helping is a welcome exception!
All the best,
Bodhipakṣa
I did a little research this morning, and I’m pretty sure I’ve solved the problem of the origins of that Fake Einstein Quote. I’m going to write it up as an article here, although I’m heading off for my daughter’s high school graduation soon, and since it’s an overnight trip it might take me another two or three days to write up my findings.
I had more time than I thought I would this morning, and here’s my article about the spurious Einstein quote on Buddhism.
Hi Bodhipaksa, what a wonderful resource your site is. One of my favorite examples of the Buddha saying that one should not misrepresent him is the Nissaraniya Sutta (AN 6:13). This is Thanissaro’s translation:
“Monks, these six properties are means of escape. Which six?
“There is the case where a monk might say, ‘Although good will has been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken by me as my awareness-release, still ill will keeps overpowering my mind.’ He should be told, ‘Don’t say that. You shouldn’t speak in that way. Don’t misrepresent the Blessed One, for it’s not right to misrepresent the Blessed One, and the Blessed One wouldn’t say that. It’s impossible, there is no way that — when good will has been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken as an awareness-release — ill will would still keep overpowering the mind. That possibility doesn’t exist, for this is the escape from ill will: good will as an awareness-release.’
Furthermore, there is the case where a monk might say, ‘Although compassion has been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken by me as my awareness-release, still viciousness keeps overpowering my mind.’….That possibility doesn’t exist, for this is the escape from viciousness: compassion as an awareness-release.’
‘Although appreciation has been developed…still resentment keeps overpowering my mind.’…That possibility doesn’t exist, for this is the escape from resentment: appreciation as an awareness-release.’
“…a monk might say, ‘Although equanimity has been developed…That possibility doesn’t exist, for this is the escape from passion: equanimity as an awareness-release.’
“… a monk might say, ‘Although the signless has been developed… still my consciousness follows the drift of signs.’ …That possibility doesn’t exist, for this is the escape from all signs: the signless as an awareness-release.’
“…a monk might say, ‘Although “I am” is gone, and I do not assume that “I am this,” still the arrow of uncertainty & perplexity keeps overpowering my mind.’ He should be told, ‘Don’t say that. You shouldn’t speak in that way. Don’t misrepresent the Blessed One, for it’s not right to misrepresent the Blessed One, and the Blessed One wouldn’t say that….That possibility doesn’t exist, for this is the escape from the arrow of uncertainty & perplexity: the uprooting of the conceit, “I am.”‘
“These, monks, are six properties that are means of escape.”
Thanks for your kind comments about the site, and also for the sutta quote. It’s an interesting one, because it’s not about misquoting the Buddha or putting words into his mouth, but about misrepresenting his teaching in a more general way, saying that a skillful quality has been fully developed when in fact it hasn’t. I take this as a reminder to keep looking for ways to make my practice more effective, and not just assuming that “it doesn’t work” or “I can’t do it.”
I’ve said elsewhere that the thing I most admire about the Buddha is that he refused to settle. As long as there was the slightest trace of unskillfulness in his mind, he kept going, looking for ways to eradicate it.
I was watching a travel programme that happened to pass through Bodh Gaya. Rather ironically, I found myself dismayed by a plaque at the site bearing the inscription: “To realise your own true nature is the essence of enlightenment.” It was in English, of course. Perhaps it’s just someone’s well-meaning opinion, as I don’t recall it being attributed to the Buddha—and I certainly can’t think of anything in the suttas that resembles it in meaning. A modern invention, perhaps?
Yikes! Was this attributed to the Buddha on the plaque? I’ve never come across it before. It’s definitely not the Buddha, and has more of a Mahayana flavor to it.
“and has more of a Mahayana flavor to it”
And what exactly is that supposed to mean?!
It means that the quote uses language more typical of Mahayana teachings than of the early Buddhist scriptures. The Buddha never talked about our “true nature,” while Mahayana scriptures do. The Buddha never talked about “the essence of enlightenment,” while that’s the kind of thing you might read in a Mahayana text. So the quote has the “flavor” (style) of a Mahayana text, rather than of something the historical Buddha is likely to have said.
The reason I asked is because I get the negative vibe from you that you only see Theravada as being authentic Buddhism while dismissing all of the others, AKA Mahāyāna, Vajrayana, Tantra, Zen, Tibetan, Pure Land etc as all being invalid/fake versions of Buddhism and I’m not taking a liking into that because that would mean that your are discrediting and being extremely disrespectful towards top of the line authors such as Robert (Bob) Thurman and especially to His Holiness The Dalai Lama and etc.
Holding such a divisive attitude makes one not a true Buddhist but rather a Sectarian Supremacist Snob.
That’s also committing The Heavy Karma of Slandering The Dharma because to deny the Supramundane knowledge and powers of His Holiness The Dalai Lama is the equivalent of denying such things of The Buddha Himself.
I hope I’m wrong, but if my vibe is indeed correct, than you shall not get another response from me after this one because I refuse to waste my time, energy, words and breath on Sectarian Supremacist Snobs who refuse to learn, grow up and spiritually mature.
So, hopefully that’s not the case and you are better than that.
I have to say your tone is surprisingly (and unnecessarily) hostile. You apparently don’t know anything about my practice, or about which scriptures I’ve studied and benefited from. It’s ironic that someone writes about karma while behaving in such an unskillful way.
You could have resolved your lack of knowledge by asking questions rather than jumping to conclusions and going on the offensive. I’d have been happy to discuss my attitude to the Mahayana scriptures in response to a friendly question, but not in response to a hostile attack.
Which is why I said “IF” so I was still giving you the benefit of the doubt.
But I’ve across a lot of fools who disregard anything that isn’t strictly Theravada so I’m on the defensive.
Read the following: “I get the negative vibe from you that you only see Theravada as being authentic Buddhism while dismissing all of the others, AKA Mahāyāna, Vajrayana, Tantra, Zen, Tibetan, Pure Land etc as all being invalid/fake versions of Buddhism and I’m not taking a liking into that because that would mean that your are discrediting and being extremely disrespectful towards top of the line authors such as Robert (Bob) Thurman and especially to His Holiness The Dalai Lama and etc. Holding such a divisive attitude makes one not a true Buddhist but rather a Sectarian Supremacist Snob.”
There is no “if” in there. It’s nothing but a series of accusations, based on nothing but supposition. Yes, you said “If” afterwards, but by then it’s too late. You’ve already made the accusation.
To say that you were giving me the benefit of the doubt is nonsense, as you are aware.
And you were not “on the defensive.” You were on the offensive. You could have simply asked a question. Having failed to simply ask a question, but instead gone on the attack, you could have apologized. Yet you’ve failed to do that as well.
It’s not too late. We all act unskillfully, but we can always start over.
I suggest you take your concern about karma to heart.
I’ll ask the question that “Jack Trevor’s” is too much of a pussy to outright ask: What are your actual thoughts on all of those other branches and schools of Buddhism? Do you see them as all invalid and fake or are they all true or rather facets of the truth?
If I may narrow this down, what are your thoughts specifically on Pure Land Buddhism and Amitabha/Amida/Amitayus Buddha and to narrow it down even further, the Jodo Shinshu school in particular? The idea that you can escape Samsara in a single life regardless of merit or Karma simply by chanting a name and going to a land where you learn enlightenment quickly (AKA the Easy Path)?
My personal view is that at best it’s wishy washy wishful thinking from people who are too cowardly and weak to practice Buddhism the right way, AKA meditation, Noble EightFold Path, renunciation through Theravada, and at worst it’s a license to commit evil and live selfishly knowing one is automatically guaranteed salvation at the end of life with all their bad Karma simply being burned away, which is extremely unfair since an evil horrible person doesn’t deserve Nirvana until they first pay the price by suffering for aeons in a Hell realm as otherwise, it’s a slap in the face to victims and families who are being cheated out of their right and entitlement to justice and vengeance.
To me, Pure Land and Jodo Shinshu sounds like an Ex-Christian who converted over to Buddhism and brought their baggage with them but I want to know what you think. Honestly, I can see why someone like “Jack” would be drawn to Pure Land lol.
Hi, Jack.
Funny how you and “Christopher” are posting from the same IP address.
The precepts are important practices. Without them, the rest of our Buddhist practice tends to be nothing more than self-deception — a futile attempt to make us feel good about ourselves.
When you slip up, as we all do, try apologizing, confessing, or making amends. We can always start over. Resorting to further deception is not the way.
All the best,
Bodhipakṣa