Talk:Dhammapada

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

Same of the Hebrew translation (which is a translation of the English): * Tr Amitov Katz?, ed Rosemary Bryant, Astrolog Publishing House, Hod Hasharon, Israel, 2005 - it should not be here. Asaf Federman (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Excerpts
The excerpts that are currently included in this article appear to be the result of a WP editor's cobbling together various English translations. I think this is highly problemmatic for a variety of reasons including: Since I do not have all of the texts identified in the ambiguously worded end note ("Translations are drawn from...."), this is only an inference. But here are two examples based on Rahula (1974) that go into that inference: Another basis for this inference is that none of this article's current verses is individually associated with any particular published source.
 * it ignores available text from reliable sources for the work of an unknown
 * it has questionable accuracy
 * it has questionable communicative use
 * it calls into question WP's scholarship
 * perhaps worst of all, it creates the opportunity for an infinite number of others to justify wordsmithing the text to their own liking

Thus, for the aforementioned reasons, in the next few days, I intend to change this article's selected verses to text from published (both print and on the web) sources including: (These particular published texts were selected simply because they are the ones to which I have ready access.)
 * Byrom, Thomas (1993). Dhammapada: The Sayings of the Buddha. Boston: Shambhala. ISBN 0-87773-966-8.
 * Buddharakkhita, Acharya (trans.) & Bhikkhu Bodhi (intro.) (1985). The Dhammapada: The Buddha's Path of Wisdom. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society. Retrieved 2008-03-27 from "BuddhaNet" at http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/scrndhamma.pdf.
 * Easwaran, Eknath (1985, 1987). The Dhammapada. Petaluma, CA: Nilgiri Press. ISBN 0-915132-37-0.
 * Fronsdal, Gil (2006). The Dhammapada. London: Shambhala. ISBN 1-59030-380-6.
 * Mascaró, Juan (1973, 1988). The Dhammapada: The Path of Perfection. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-044284-7.
 * Rahula, Walpola (1974). What the Buddha Taught. NY: Grove Press. ISBN 0-802-13031-3
 * Thanissaro Bhikkhu (2005). Dhammapada: The Path of Dhamma. Retrieved 2008-03-27 from "Access To Insight" at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/index.html.

Anyone disagree? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what WP policy is on quotations from translations of non-host-language sources. Provisionally, one might suppose that the normal criteria for reliable sources apply, which means basically that we should use translations from reputable publishers, especially academic ones. Here that would mean PTS & OUP at least. I'll have a look at the list & see which others. Peter jackson (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kalupahana is from an academic publisher, but his views often seem eccentric, & I don't know whether that might be relevant here. Penguin are I suppose a reputable publisher, but the most scholarly authorities are probably Norman (PTS), & Carter & Palihawadana (OUP).

Pan-Buddhist popularity?

 * As I said, I don't know WP policy here. It strikes me we could have endless arguments about which excerpts to include, just as Further reading lists often seem to be arbitrary collections of what happened to take some contributors fancy.


 * While you're here, note my citation request for the statement that it's popular in all Buddhist schools. This seems unlikely. Jodo Shinshu? Peter jackson (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter -
 * I've just a moment &mdash; am doing a habitual round of my watchlist &mdash; but thought I'd quickly add some initial thoughts &mdash; in case you wanted to act sooner rather than later.
 * Regarding reliable source for quotes: the more reliable, the better &mdash; I agree. I'd like more time to think about that here.  Perhaps if you could insert the relevant PTS/OUP text, that would be most beneficial -- I don't think I have access to these specific translations of the Dhammapada. I'll try to respond more thoughtfully regarding this soon.
 * Regarding your recent addition of a Fact-tag: I totally agree. I was going to tag the sentence that you did myself but decided at the last moment that I had probably ticked off enough people with my text shifting and fact-tagging another likely overgeneralization.  FWIW, I did not create that sentence that you tagged but simply moved it around and/or paraphrased an existing sentence.  As far as I'm concerned, feel free to delete it.
 * Thanks for your resourceful input. Hope you're doing well,
 * Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the popularity of the Dhammapada- I seem to recall reading at some point discussion of the idea that the popularity of the Dhammapada is a semi-recent phenomenon, a product of conscious attempts at putting it forth in Sri Lanka as a concise Buddhist text suitable for the laity- essentially an attempt at providing a counter-weight to the missionary practice of handing out copies of the Bible left and right. I feel like this was in either Gombrich or Tambiah (likely Buddhism Betrayed if the latter?), but I can't find the reference at the moment- don't know if anyone recalls something similar.  Interestingly, while looking for something comparable in the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism, everything that was mentioned about the popularity of the Dhammapada seemed to be pretty unqualified: "one of the most popular texts with Buddhist monks and laypersons" (627), "rank[s] among the best known Buddhist texts" (11).  I do agree with Peter that the "all Buddhist schools" seems a bit unlikely.  --Clay Collier (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Clay - Thanks for the very interesting points. I think we do have enough citations to indicate that the work is "popular" (while deleting the seemingly dubious pan-Buddhism claim). E.g., in addition to your MacMillan Encyc. statements, Harvey (2007), p. 322, writes: "Its popularity is reflected in the many times it has been translated into Western languages."  (I think von Hinuber indicated it's been translated over 50 times.) Perhaps then just a snip & citation? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just counted. there are 56 translations listed in the article. This doesn't count internet ones. I did have a look at the possibility of incorporating these in the main list, but quickly abandoned the idea on discovering that a number of them appeared not to state the translator (which means they may be the same as ones already listed, & I'm certainly not going to try to check all 56, even if I had access to all of them) &/or date (which the list is arranged by.


 * Anyway, all this proves that it's very popular among English speakers, not necessarily Buddhists. I'm pretty sure it has long had a genuine popularity in Theravada, though it may well be the case that this is more so recently. As a parallel, I've seen it stated that the Bhagavadgita wasn't important in Hinduism till the 19th century. Warder says (citation added to Pali Canon yesterday) that the Jataka is the most popular book. I've put this in as according to for now. Someone may well find a reliable source for the Dhammapada. It does have a recent popularity in Japan, I think, but that may not cross all schools. The traditional situation is as I've put it, tho' I can't give citations right now. (Aside: the Gandhari is not the only Prakrit version; I'll look up details sometime.) Peter jackson (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So, in regards to the intro, the current summary statement (based on main-body text) states:
 * It is one of the best known texts from the Theravada canon, popular across Buddhist schools.

I'll presently cut this down to simply:
 * It is one of the best known texts from the Theravada canon.

The main body's text in question states:
 * The Dhammapada is a popular section of the Pāli Tipitaka and is considered one of the most important pieces of Theravada literature. Despite being a primarily Theravada text, the Dhammapada is read by many Mahayana Buddhists and has become a very popular text across all schools of Buddhism.

Should the second sentence simply be completely deleted and citations (e.g., MacMillan, Geiger) be added to the first sentence? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC) (P.S., re: the Jataka's popularity, I'm wondering if Warder's basing this in part on the many loosely translated picture books for children found in Buddhist homes?)


 * Probably what you suggest is best for now. Warder doesn't say where he gets this from. In actuality, it'll be the Jataka commentary that's popular, with the frequently unintelligible text embedded, which raises conceptual questions. Fortunately, WP doesn't have to bother with them. Peter jackson (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Done! Thanks again Peter for raising this issue and to Clay for providing the Encyc. of B. quotes.
 * I also took the liberty of wordsmithing the remaining sentence some so it now reads:
 * The Dhammapada, from the Pāli Tipitaka, is considered one of the most popular pieces of Theravada literature.
 * The reason for this wordsmithing was to get rid of the questionable relationship between "important" and "popular." Now, "popular" is just "popular."  Feel free to revert this wordsmithing or wordsmith further, of course!  Thanks again & with metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for translations
Returning to Peter's point: What makes for a reliable source regarding translations? Perhaps as Peter suggests, by my prefering published translations over anonymous translations I might have just pushed the argument back one level -- from anonymous users arguing over idiosyncratic word choices to us wrangling over which is the best published translation.

I do feel though that a well respected published translation is more likely to be more authoritative (accurate and/or communicative) than a non-scholar's dabblings. I can also understand using "provisionally" (as Peter states) the standard WP:RS policy. My main hesitation is that I think (and I believe many others would agree [e.g., cf. Peter's recent additions to the Pali Canon article :-) ]) that PTS translations tend to be out-dated -- both in terms of colloquialisms (e.g., T.W. Rhys Davids' use of "Church" for "sangha") and scholarship (e.g., C.A.F. Rhys Davids' use of Latin terms from Thomas Aquinas). On the other hand, while I'm not familiar with K.R. Norman's listed 1997 PTS translation, I intuit it would be great. Peter, if you could type in some Norman Dhp translations here, I'd love to see 'em.

I guess, in short, I'd prefer a published "reliable source" translation over a published non-reliable source translation, and I'd prefer a published non-reliable source translation over a non-published WP editor's cobbling of various translations.

Tangentially, I'm inclined to put the English in a left-hand column and Pali in the right, sort of as a "quality control" mechanism (e.g., can "Path of Purity" really be accurately changed to "path to peace" as was done in the current translations of verses 277-9?) as well as to show off the beauty of the Pali (e.g., verse 5 comes readily to mind).

In short, if any WP regular really disagrees with any of this, I'm willing to drop it, not pursue it further. If we could find some common ground on this matter, I think that would have value as well. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I might get round to entering Norman's version sometime. You can get it in paperback, tho'. He makes the point that most translations tend to be largely paraphrases of each other. I'm inclined to agree with your idea of including the Pali. Peter jackson (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter -
 * Thanks for mentioning the Norman paperback edition. (States-side, I see it's available at Pariyatti.)  I'll consider adding it to my collection.  Also, I'll add the Pali presently.
 * Two more questions if I may:
 * Copyright question: The article currently includes 13 verses. If we take all the translations of these verses from a single source, when might this become a copyright issue? (In other words, how much are we actually allowed to quote from a single source?)  If 13 verses are too many to take from one source, should we consider using a second WP:RS translation as well?  (Such might also be beneficial to give WP readers a sense of diverse translations, perhaps?)
 * Verse selection: I'm not sure what the basis for the current selection of verses was. Personally, I've the impression that the first few verses (three of which are currently included) are among the most popular.  But the basis for selecting the other verses seems to me, at least without more thinking, somewhat haphazard.  Any ideas on how to pick the most important/meaningful/popular/pertinent/appropriate ?
 * Lastly, if I end up not buying the Norman translation and after several days you don't have a chance to enter text from Norman, would you mind if I go ahead and substitute text from the Penguin addition (since I have that at hand and, Peter, you expressed some level of possible acceptance for that publisher/edition)? Afterwards, if you, I or someone else wants to type in Norman or OUP or any other WP:RS edition's text, that would be fine.  How do you all feel about this?
 * Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Oxford one is also available in paperback. I'm certainly not thinking of doing this in the next few days. What I said about Penguin was about the application of WP criteria. In this particular case I think I read somewhere that the translation is inaccurate (or maybe even biased). Presumably it counts as reasonably reliable unless we find a reliable source saying otherwise.


 * There must be a WP guideline page on copyright somewhere in the labyrinth of such pages. The general problem would be that we have to comply with the copyright laws of practically every jurisdiction in the world. Peter jackson (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Selection tends to be arbitrary, as I said above. 183 should be included, as it's quoted all over the place. I suppose in theory you could do an internet search for each verse. Peter jackson (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter -
 * Thanks for mentioning the availability of the most recent OUP translation (e.g., here at Amazon, where one can also view a few translated paragraphs on-line -- and half the price of the PTS edition ;-) ). Overall, based on a very limited scan, it seems to be one of the most faithful renditions I've seen (a definite plus in my mind) though, for me, the words seem a wee strained.  I think, for instance, its translation of verse 5 exhibits both these characteristics:


 * Of course, as you are no doubt itching to tell me now, my assessment is worthless here on WP, and I agree. Despite my personal quibble, I have neither basis for nor inclination to object to one's inserting quotes from this text here (assuming copyvio concerns aren't an issue).
 * Regarding the Penguin edition, I can understand Peter the basis for your recollected sources' concerns. I reviewed some verses last night and they are not strongly tied to the Pali or, perhaps arguably, even Buddhism.  Introductory material indicates that the author wanted to emphasize the poetic nature of the material and his interests appeared to be "spiritualist" as opposed to "Buddhist."  He did teach at Cambridge and Oxford -- though he taught about English lit, the Bible, Spanish mystics, etc while there -- and did live in Sri Lanka....  Well, instead of giving my own POV, here's a translation of the Dhp's first two lines for your own assessment:


 * In short, I'm disinclined to be replicating this here.
 * Personally, I've found the Fronsdal/Shambhala translation best -- accurate to the Pali, accurate to Buddhism, contemporary, well-phrased -- but I know and understand Peter your POV-related caveat about Shambhala being associated with FPMT (though we are talking about a Theravada text translated by a Stanford University Buddhist Studies Ph.D. with a background in Zen and Theravada Buddhism). Anticipating your strong feelings against this publishing house, I won't pursue this further unless you suggest your openness.
 * Another alternative: the 1881 Max Muller-edited OUP-published Dhp is available on Wikisource at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dhammapada_%28Muller%29. Using this would use a WP:RS publication for which copyright issues no longer apply.  I'd be happy to cut and paste from this wikisource to here.  Any thoughts?
 * Excellent point about verse 183. When we get down to revising the English text, I'll be sure to include it (if you or someone else does not do so first.)  I like your idea about Googling verses -- perhaps TBD?
 * Regards, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My strong feellings, not specifically about Shambhala, are derived from long experience of particular Buddhist teachers & factions imposing their own views & interpretations on everything. They may well do this in good faith, convinced their views & interpretations are correct, just like our colleagues Attasarana & Langdell, but WP doesn't work that way & I have to keep sressing that statements by Buddhist authorities are generally reliable sources only for their own views, not for those of other Buddhists.

I think the RS criteria have to be applied with a bit of common sense. A source can be simply out of date.

A thought. We might deliberately & explicitly include samples from different translations. Perhaps different sorts of translations:


 * scholarly (Norman)
 * traditionalist (Buddharakkhita)
 * verse (?)

or similar. Peter jackson (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I like your thinking. For "verse," do you mean a translation that sticks close to the verse structure of Dhp (e.g., the above referenced OUP) or a translation that itself is versified?  I assume the former but just thought I'd check.  (FWIW, I vaguely recall seeing a translation somewhere that I thought included even the original Pali's caesurae, but I can't readily locate now.  [I might just be misrecalling Thanissaro's non-traditionally versified version.])
 * I have a computer wide screen so I'm not sure if what I write below would fit on a normal width screen but, in case it does, how does something like the following look (with the appropriate ref-tags):


 * In the above, I've substitute Muller (first column) for the anticipated entry of Norman text. Second column is Buddharakkhita; third is OUP; fourth SLTP.  Also, FWIW, if you wouldn't mind me collapsing the PaliCanon template, we'd have a wider space to fill (at least on my screen).  If the above is too wide for a normal-width screen, I can shrink the font-size to 85% or so perhaps.  Your thoughts? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I meant a translation into actual English verse (or indeed poetry), as that's a different sort of translation. Mrs Rhys Davids is, but old.


 * I wasn't specifically thinking of having all the sample verses in all translations. We could have one in comparative form as you suggest + samples of other translations.


 * As regards the template, perhaps theree's somewhere else to put it. How about list of chapter titles? Peter jackson (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: versified translation -- If by "verse" you mean with end rhymes, I don't know of any such translations. Does C.A.F. Rhys Davids' translation include such?  (If so, I bow even more lowly before her!)  If not and free verse would do, then the only poetically versified translations I know of are the Fronsdal/Shambhala, the Byrom/Shambhala and Thanissaro. To give a simple example of each, here's how each of these handle verse 1:


 * FWIW, even if dated, for comparison's sake Rhys Davids' would be fine with me.


 * Re: in-tandem translations -- I'm fine with your idea. It sounds like then we'll essentially use three translations in rotation: one main one per verse and then an alternate (presumably significantly different in some way).  Perhaps without a "verse" translation readily identified, should we just go with Muller (soon-to-be Norman) and Buddharakkhita for now?  If this is good with you, I'd be happy to go ahead and do it ASAP.


 * Re: collapsing/moving the PaliCanon template -- I've alternate ideas: (1) get rid of the blue-colored rows and reduce all titles to two- or three-letter abbreviations; or, (2) collapsing it completely so that only the "Pali Canon" top shelf and "view-talk-edit" bottom shelf are visible unless [show] is clicked upon; or, (3) the same as idea (2) but also retaining the intermediary shelves of Vinaya Pitaka, Sutta Pitaka and Abhidhamma Pitaka. If we think it worthwhile doing this, I'm leaning towards (1).  Your thoughts?  Otherwise, moving it is easiest but I'm not sure where else in the article it would be pertinent.


 * Re: "chapter titles" -- I don't follow. Do you mean Dhp. chapter titles or titles associated with KN, etc.?  Is this to be put in a template or simply another section of the text?  If the latter, I'd be happy to enter it ASAP (e.g., based on Muller). Whatcha think? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert on poetry. I simply mean whatever is conventionally regarded as such. I think RD does rhyme.


 * Rotating translations wasn't what I was thinking of either, but I have no strong preference on this sort of thing at present.


 * You're the one who can deal with graphics etc. Perhaps you can produce an intermediate-size template.


 * I meant the chapters of Dhp (as you did with Vibhanga & Udana).Peter jackson (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I don't have access to RD's 1931 verse (is it on-line?), would you be open to the inclusion of either Fronsdal or Thanissaro? If not, for now, would it be okay with you if I just go ahead and enter Muller and Buddharakkhita side-by-side with the Pali text?  (Tangentially, the Buddharakkhita version I have in mind is his 1985 BPS revised version available on-line from BuddhaNet.  Please let me know if you're disinclined toward this edition.)


 * If I include the chapter titles, this will obviate the need for collapsing the PaliCanon template in this article (because it will create a significant text buffer between the PC template and the columnar Dhp excerpts). So, for now at least, I'll hold off working on such.  If you see a need elsewhere for a collapsed or alternate/smaller template, please let me know.  (E.g., perhaps a generic WP infobox might be useful in some places?)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I'll enter English and Pali chapter titles presently (assuming my laptop battery doesn't run out). Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * At present I'm just putting down some thoughts, not expressing strong opinions. I'm not going to start arguing about this at present. Peter jackson (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll enter Muller (from here) and Buddharakkhita (from here) side-by-side with the Pali in the next day or two or three. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I entered Muller (1881). I entered several verses from Buddharakkhita (1985) but then decided to read WP policy (e.g., WP:FAIR) and afterwards decided that, in good faith, I could not incorporate the Buddharakkhita translation in this context. My thinking was along this lines: Sooo, I've left room for a second translation but, until we clarify the purpose of all these excerpts and the copyvio policy around such, I'm gonna leave it as is for now. Perhaps if we cut the verses down to three or four and then contextualize them with some level of analysis or explanation it would be more appropriate? Sorry if my last minute balking has frustrated anyone. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP copyright-violation policy (CV) states: "Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted."
 * As we briefly discussed above, I'm not sure how brief "brief" is. I was thinking perhaps one percent (e.g., 4 verses) but even this is unclear
 * the excerpts here are neither commented on nor criticized. In fact, it's not clear to me why there is such an extensive "Excerpt" section, especially given that Wikisource already provides such.  Up until December 2007, there were only four translated verses in this article, three of them from the Penguin edition.  I think this was far more appropriate given the nature of WP.
 * The copyright on Buddharakkhita (1985) states: "You may re-format and redistribute this work for use on computers and computer networks provided that you charge no fees for its distribution or use." As User:Nat_Krause once pointed out to me about ATI, this is very generous but does not comply with GFDL.  What we place on WP might be used by some site with advertisements, etc.  Thus I feel my entering it here might not only be a copyvio but, more importantly, would violate this gift of the Dhamma.


 * I don't think that translation by Müller is accurate, and I don't like the Byrom or Thannisaro translations either. I don't accept the translation of Mano as Heart, I think that's quite wrong.  The Fromsdal is a little better.  My literal translation would be:
 * All phenomena arise from Mind. They are mind-led and mind-constructed.
 * That's what the text literally says.
 * So it seems to me that what Buddha is saying here is the earthshaking statement that the basis of the universe - that is, all phenomena (not just mental phenomena, it's not qualified like that) - is Mind. CF the founder of quantum physics, Neils Bohr, that the universe is consciousness, a view held by many quantum physicists. The Müller translation diminishes the Buddha's insight by making it a mere ethical idea, that is, volition as the basis of action.  I don't see in the text that this is what the Buddha meant at all.  It's part of the swamp of myths and misinterpretations by the Anglo-Belgian school (although is Müller in the Germano-French school?) that I'm working to dispel.
 * So here, we would understand the Buddha as making a huge statement about Reality before showing that this has practical consequences in one's life. One is not the mere subject of outside influences. Indigocat (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I discussed this the other day with Ven. Abbot Tan, the abbot of the large Quang Minh temple near me. The Vietnamese use the classical Chinese texts. The way that he would render the verse from the Chinese is about halfway between mine and Fromsdahl (I suppose he is taking his from the UdanaVarga as I don't think there's an actual Dhammapada in the Chinese).
 * And that's the reason why the Dhammapada, intended as the first text a beginner would turn to, starts with this statement. It starts with what we can call the consistent Buddhist view of reality throughout most schools, and then shows how that leads to the Buddhist path.  Everything else in the Dhammapada rests on these first two verses.
 * I think the way that Thannisaro translates and further weakens it points to the persistent misunderstanding by Theravada Modernist elements, those being the main ones interacting with Westerners and having changed Buddhism to fit in with Western views. I think the understanding and intentions of the original compiler of the Dhammapada were probably quite far from a lot of modern Theravada teachings especially from Sri Lanka.
 * So from my perspective, I think it's better not to put up anything at all than to put up something as mistranslated as Muller. On the question of reasonable excerpts, it seems to me that two paragraphs falls under the definition of a reasonable excerpt.  If those verses or that translation are then discussed, it falls under the exemption of quoting for review.  But if further paragraphs are added, I think its too much and we should quote the other paragraphs from a different translation.  That also gives more options for readers to explore further. Indigocat (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that Müller's translation is terribly out of date. 141 years, to be exact. This needs to be solved.
 * I would like to propose using the translation by Bhikkhu Ānandajoti, the 2nd edition of which was published in November 2017. The book is both available in paperback and freely online, and offers a reliable and relatively unbiased translation of the Dhammapada that is much more accurate and up-to-date than Müller's. Surely this would be an improvement? Cvangog (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cvangog that this translation by Anandajoti is better. But I would add some commentary.  Bhikku Anandajoti has:
 * Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā, manoseṭṭhā manomayā,
 * Mind precedes thoughts, mind is their chief, (their quality is)  made by mind.
 * I would comment: Bhikkhu Ananadajoti is here translating 'dhamma' as 'thoughts. I think this is totally unacceptable. 'Dhamma' is 'Phenomena' in this context - ALL phenomena. I think a little better is Acharya Buddharakkhita:
 * 'Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought'
 * But we still have all of these translations confine it to mental phenomena. I don't think that this is what The Buddha is saying at all.  He has 'citta' if he wants 'thoughts', 'vijnana' if he wants consciousness.  Literally, he is just saying 'phenomena'.
 * In fact, why don't we start a section, 'Pairs 1 controversy' - or even a new page on the matter (I'd like to see a page, too, on the Buddha's stating that women, children and animals have rights, his attacks on slavery, his extirpation during his time of human and animal sacrifice). I don't see any obstacle to quoting several of the translations to show how the translators, faced with the original have grown increasingly bold over time in rendering it.  That translation by Müller is everywhere and I'd like to see it completely discredited and discarded.  So please get rid of it, it is misleading and wrong.  I could only wish that my poor Pali could be good enough for a REAL translation that was prepared to accept just how breathing and revolutionary the Buddha's thought was.  The Buddha is never included in Western lists of the greatest thinkers of all time (which usually list only European thinkers from 1700-1930, maybe one or two ancient Greeks).  The Buddha had ideas that were not understood and explored until a thousand or even 1500 years after his death.  There is nobody else in history that can match that.  No-one even comes close. - Thomas Kent, Yogi Sherab Indigocat (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If I were to create a page, 'Buddha as humanitarian revolutionary' or some such, do you think that this would violate Wikipedia's TOS? Or even two pages: Buddhism and Humanism (there is a section on Buddhism under Ahimsa), and another one: The Revolutionary Nature of the Buddha's Ideas. I am recording some talks on this now but am very hampered by illness.
 * You know there was a page on Christianity and slavery that stated that only within Christianity could anti-slavery have arisen. This risible page appears to have disappeared. - Thomas Kent, Yogi Sherab Indigocat (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Another point: most of these translations render 'manomaya' as something like 'constructed by mind'. Thanissaro is closer when he says 'made of the heart'.  Someone with better Pali may correct me, but I don't think that this is an instrumental case: 'made by'.  As far as I can see, the text literally says that mind is the building material, that things 'dhamma' are not constructed by mind, but that they are made out of mind.  - Thomas Kent, Yogi Sherab Indigocat (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion?
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)


 * 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)

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

Ethics?
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)

"literary merits"?!
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Norman, Collected Papers, vol VI, p156=BSR, 6, 2, p153 (only the former checked):

"There are those who have rated it among the masterpieces of Indian literature, although others have disagreed with this judgement."

158/155:

"Brough ... politely dissented with those who have rated [the Dhammapada]] among the masterpieces of Indian literature ... He expressed his view that those who write in thois way can hardly have made any serious comparison with great literature; nor could anyone with a sense of literary values describe the whole collection in terms scarcely merited by its best parts, if he had himself lived day and night close enough to these verses for long enough to arrive at an assessment of his own disencumbered of hearsay [ref to Brough, Gandhari Dharmapada, p xvii] Brough was apoet in his own right ... and his [p156] view should not be disregarded lightly."

Peter jackson (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * certainly possible, I would say. Greetings, Sacca 05:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a negative remark. It mentions both POVs. Peter jackson (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I quite agree.--Akanksha (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

While the literary merit of a seminal text of a given culture may well be an interesting thing to do, the discussion here is perfunctory at best. Worse, it gives more space to people who think the text is cliche ridden than people who think its a masterpiece. Why should Brough be cited as a key commentator? The majority of commentators think it is a masterpiece and few cliche-ridden patchworks find their place into the heart of a major religion or have a massive influence on how a culture unfolds. What world-changing spiritual text did Brough produce, if I may ask?

This seems very strange to me. If a can of worms of this kind is going to be opened up, it needs to be gone into in detail, otherwise one is being irresponsible. A serious discussion of a major work of Scripture's literary merits needs to be a serious discussion, not five lines in which four are given over to a poet whose work is not that well known. What next? A study in the boring repetitions in the Koran or a lack of narrative drive in the Bagavad Gita? More detail, please. ThePeg (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

External links modified
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)

English translation
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)

Translation of the word 'dharma' in the first line
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)

I have found an accurate translation you can use!
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)