Talk:Dhammapada

message: Hungarian translations don't belong here. They should be in the Hungarian Wikipedia. Peter jackson 16:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-English translations

message: Neither Analects nor Book of Proverbs includes samples, tho' both consist largely of short independent pieces just like Dhp. Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  If the excerpts were explicitly used to highlight a facet of the Dhp. per WP fair-use policy (e.g., to illustrate methods of persuasion used, types of so-called "ethics" discussed, recurring phrases, stanza structures, contrasts with other texts, or even, perhaps arguably, displaying a few "best known" verses according to a WP:RS), I'd be inclined to leave them in.  But they don't.  And translations are already available at WikiSource.  Given the precedence of other WP articles, the gist of the WP fair-use policy and the existing wiki material: If there's a vote, I vote to delete this article's current excerpts section. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion?

message: Perhaps someone can check my spelling of the Chinese title. Peter jackson (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese 

message: Mrs Rhys Davids' translation of the Dhammasangani is titled A Buddhist Manual of Psychological Ethics. One might wonder whether describing Dhp as ethical actually says anything distinctive. Peter jackson (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics? 

message: I do not understand the lineinthe introduction. It says that it has little literary merit, yet it is a great writing: the preceding AND following paragraphs are also positive, yet that negative. I think the source is too outdated and/or BIASED to be considered accurate. Forgive my tone, for I am a strict Theravaadan buddhist. --129.44.177.86 (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction does not say that the Dhammapada has little literary merit; it says its merit is debated.  This, as far as I can tell, is true: some readers consider the Dhammapada to be an excellent distillation of Buddhist teachings, presented in approachable and poetic language.  Other readers believe that since the text primarily consists of verses drawn from other sources, it has little to say that is original or innovative.  The cited source is from a recognized academic journal, and authored by a very influential scholar of Pali literature.  It might be worth noting that the issue of the Dhammapada's literary merit is primarily a debate among scholars; since they are generally looking at the wider canon, the "derivativeness" of the Dhammapada is more apparent.  Most Buddhists who aren't Buddhist Studies PhD's, if they are reading Pali scripture at all, are reading the Dhammapada on its own with a view to its utility as an inspirational or morally instructive work, rather than for a presentation of novel philosophical insights.  --Clay Collier (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was talking just about derivativeness. I can dig out more detail sometime if you like. Peter jackson (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be useful- it's not clear from the quote what exactly is being critiqued by saying that its literary merit is debatable.  I somehow doubt that it's being condemned as genre fiction ;) --Clay Collier (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: It is odd that the literary merits of a scripture is something that needs to go into an introduction, especially considering that no mention is made of it in the article. Could it be that the person who added it was happy to find a negative remark and so put it in the introduction where it did not belong? Mitsube (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: certainly possible, I would say. Greetings, Sacca 05:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a negative remark. It mentions both POVs. Peter jackson (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree.--Akanksha (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree. While both POVs are "mentioned," the Literary Merits section has obviously been written with a much greater emphasis on criticism of the text. There is not a single referenced statement in this section praising the book; only backhanded compliments from its detractors which are immediately followed by criticism (e.g. "while it contained a few novel and well-constructed verses, suffered from an 'accumulation of insipid mediocrity.'"). Furthermore, the section was written entirely by a single author in the 06:51, 2 February 2009 revision and has remained largely unchanged since then. There is an obvious bias in this section. I am no scholar, but unless I or someone else can find suitable references to illustrate the opposing viewpoint, I intend to correct this section with at least a template defining it as giving undue weight, at most complete removal. john factorial (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "literary merits"?! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dhammapada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060418154616/http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/dhammapada.htm to http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/dhammapada.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think you will find that there are better translations, such as : https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=001 Stjohn1970 (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English translation 

message: Under the Talk Heading, 'sources of reliable translations' above, I discussed the meaning of the first line:
Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā, manoseṭṭhā manomayā,
I would render this in one of two ways.  It could be:
'All dhammas arise from Mind. They are mind-led and mind-constructed...'
or
'All dhammas arise from Mind. They are mind-led, mind is chief...'
My Pali isn't good enough to know whether 'manomaya' is in the instrumental case, meaning 'made By mind', or whether it actually is in another case and means 'made OF mind', literally that Mind is the substance of which dharmas are made.
But my main problem is this.  All translators so far have translated 'dhammas' as either 'thoughts', which it is not, 'heart', which is ridiculous, or correctly translated it as phenomena but added 'mental', so 'mental' phenomena'.  But it doesn't say this. It just says 'phenomena', so I don't know why everybody glosses it as 'mental'.  If you just translate it as 'phenomena', it means that Mind is the basis of all things, which is standard teaching throughout all of Buddhism that I know, even a lot of Theravada.
I am wondering whether this gloss of 'mental' comes from Buddhaghosa's commentary, which isn't available online in English. In fact I'm not certain whether those parts of Buddhaghosa's commentary that deal with the Pali grammar have even been translated into English.  But Buddhaghosa is wrong about some things.  For example he says women have three stomachs, something like that anyway.
Now here is something interesting.  Ven. Tan is Abbot of the nearby Quang Minh Temple, the second largest temple in Victoria and (I think) the 4th largest in Australia.  Every Sunday they get 2,000 people through and feed 600; during a big week they get 40,000.  Ven. Tan tells me that in Classical Chinese, the word 'dharma' here has been translated as 'thoughts'.  The word used is 'i' (prn. 'ee'), meaning 'thoughts' and is actually usually used as a translation of 'citta', whereas he says that the word for 'dhammas' is actually in Chinese 'fa', and he agrees that 'dhammas' means ALL phenomena.  So it looks as though this section of the Dhammapada has been mistranslated into Classical Chinese.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigocat (talk • contribs) 06:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of the word 'dharma' in the first line 

message: I have edited the text to explain the first two paragraphs of the Dhammapada.  I had trouble correcting my edit, as somehow, unwanted changes happened to the main text.
As I stated above, to translate the first line as 'Mind precedes all mental states (or here, 'thoughts')' is RIDICULOUS!!!
Lord Buddha was the greatest genius who has ever lived.  Some of his statements are said to have shaken the Earth.  Some things he said, such as Sunya/Sunyata, were not explored and understood until a thousand and twelve hundred years after his life, and only confirmed in the West during the 20th and 21st centuries.  He would NEVER have stated such a limp truism as 'Mind precedes all mental states'.  OF COURSE Mind precedes thoughts.  IF you say this, it DOES NOT EXPLAIN how evil mental states give rise to actual physical phenomena.
What the text actually says is 'Mind precedes ALL PHENOMENA.  This is a statement that could well have shaken the earth.  But some idiot has translated this as MENTAL states, which it does not say, and subsequent translators have all said the same thing, following each other like camels following each other’s' tails.
I found two correct translations online.  One was a fifty-year old translation by a Burmese monk who says, correctly, "Mind precedes all phenomena'.  I found that under a Gurgle Search for Dhammapada commentary.  But the problem is, I can't find it again.
But I have found another accurate translation and, what's more, I think it's out of copyright and is by acknowledged great translators.  It is a version by Bhikkhu Pesala and Ven Nārada Mahāthero. (http://www.aimwell.org/01-yamaka.html
It commences: “Mind is the forerunner of (all evil) states.
Mind is chief; and they are mind-made."
This is very accurate, although the insert is unnecessary. 
I need to add two comments and have done so on the page.  These two lines: If one speaks or acts with a corrupt mind, from that, suffering follows, as the wheel follows the hoof of the ox.' and 'If one speaks or acts with a pure mind,
from that, happiness follows, as one’s own shadow that never leaves' - 
these lines are actually direct quotes from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad.
The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad was only ‘written’ (orally, as there was no reading and writing during the Buddha’s day) about fifty years before Lord Buddha was born, and it has the first ever references to karma and rebirth. As it is (in English) 1000 pages long, very very few laymen would have had the time and interest to listen to the whole thing, which would have taken weeks. It contains just 6 casual references to karma and rebirth together (the word karma is used a few times in the Vedas to simply mean ‘an Action’). But among the Sramanas, wandering ascetics who were seeking Truth, it would have been THE hot topic of the day.
In other words, Lord Buddha was speaking to an audience that would have known that these lines were quotes.   The great genius of Lord Buddha was that he explained HOW and WHY Mind could give rise to external phenomena, how wicked thoughts could give rise to external wicked things affecting the thinker.  He was the first person in history to say this.
The reason these verses stand at the start of the Dhammapada, the first book and often the only book that many Buddhists will read, is that the compiler of these quotes from various texts wanted the reader to understand that Buddhism says that the universe is MIND.  
And after 2,500 years, the West caught up.  Neils Bohr, the creator of quantum physics, said ‘The Universe is consciousness’.  And the great physicist Sir James Jeans said the same thing.  
http://www.aimwell.org/01-yamaka.html
==I  would like to change my edit to the following.  But every time I try, weird things happen to the actual verses text.
1.	This translation is inaccurate, along with most translators, he has translated ‘dhammas’ as ‘mental states’ (or in this case, ‘thoughts’). This is not what the text says.  It says, quite simply, ‘Mind precedes ALL phenomena’.
To translate the first line as 'Mind precedes all thoughts’ is RIDICULOUS!!!  Lord Buddha was the greatest genius who has ever lived.  Some of his statements are said to have shaken the Earth.  Some things he taught, such as Sunya/Sunyata, were not explored and understood until a thousand and twelve hundred years after his life, and only confirmed in the West during the 20th and 21st centuries.  He would NEVER have stated such a limp truism as 'Mind precedes all thoughts’.  OF COURSE Mind precedes all thoughts.  IF you say this, it DOES NOT EXPLAIN how evil mental states give rise to actual physical phenomena.
2. The second thing we should note is that these two lines:
If one speaks or acts with a corrupt mind, from that, suffering follows, as the wheel follows the hoof of the ox.'
And
If one speaks or acts with a pure mind, from that, happiness follows, as one’s own shadow that never leaves- 
these lines are actually direct quotes from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad.
The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad was only ‘written’ (orally, as there was no reading and writing during the Buddha’s day) about fifty years before Lord Buddha was born, and it has the first ever references to karma and rebirth.  As it is (in English) 1000 pages long, very very few laymen would have had the time and interest to listen to the whole thing, which would have taken weeks.  It contains just 6 casual references to karma and rebirth together (the word karma is used a few times in the Vedas to simply mean ‘an Action’). But among the Sramanas, wandering ascetics who were seeking Truth, it would have been THE hot topic of the day.
In other words, Lord Buddha was speaking to an audience that would have known that these lines were quotes.   The great genius of Lord Buddha was that he explained HOW and WHY Mind could give rise to external phenomena, how wicked thoughts could give rise to external wicked things affecting the thinker.  It happens because the universe is made out of Mind.  He was the first person in history to say this.
The reason these verses stand at the start of the Dhammapada, the first book and often the only book that many Buddhists will read, is that the compiler of these quotes from various texts wanted the reader to understand that Buddhism says that the universe is MIND.
3.  And the third thing we should note is that after 2,500 years, the West caught up.  Neils Bohr, the creator of quantum physics, said ‘The Universe is consciousness’.  And the great physicist Sir James Jeans said the same thing. =
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigocat (talk • contribs) 12:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have found an accurate translation you can use!