I’ve seen this one around a lot, and since someone just wrote asking about it I thought I’d address it.

“It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell.”

The quote is from Thomas Byrom’s “rendering” of the Dhammapada. The word “rendering” is in quotations because there is every indication that Byrom knew no Pali — the language in which the Dhammapada was written — and that he concocted his version with the help of other translations, a dictionary, and a large dose of wishful thinking. Pali can be a tricky language to decode even if you’re relatively familiar with the language. Even with a good grasp of Pali grammar, the verse works in particular are hard to decipher, because the regular rules of grammar are dispensed with in order to fit the words into the meter. Add in a soupçon of ambiguous vocabulary, a pinch of cryptic language that merely hints at experiences beyond all but the most spiritually advanced, a sprinkling of textual corruptions, and a heaped teaspoon of anachronisms, and sometimes even the best translators are left guessing.

Take away an understanding of the grammar, and basically what you have is word-salad. The non-Pali expert is now at an advantage! Because he or she, unconstrained by actual knowledge, can just make something up that more or less refers to the words in the verses, without having to worry about how those words might have been intended to work together in order to produce meaning. The non-Pali expert can rearrange the words and make up something new. Byrom seems to have done this, as does Ann Bancroft.

This particular verse is not one of Byrom’s worst, although I still wouldn’t go as far as to say that he actually translated it.

Here are three versions side by side: Thanissaro’s, Buddharakkhita’s, and Byrom’s.

103–105. Greater in battle than the man who would conquer a thousand-thousand men, is he who would conquer just one — himself. Better to conquer yourself than others. When you’ve trained yourself, living in constant self-control, neither a deva nor gandhabba, nor a Mara banded with Brahmas, could turn that triumph back into defeat.

103. Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself. 104-105. Self-conquest is far better than the conquest of others. Not even a god, an angel, Mara or Brahma can turn into defeat the victory of a person who is self-subdued and ever restrained in conduct.

It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell.

You’ll notice that although the first two are radically different in style, they both cover the same ground, semantically speaking. Byrom’s even at a glance, is far more compact. Most of the meaning and detail has been lost.

“Better to conquer yourself than others” (Thanissaro) or “Self-conquest is far better than the conquest of others” has been turned into “Then the victory is yours.” NoW Byrom’s version is nice and poetic, but it’s not what’s in the Pali. “Heaven or hell” has appeared out of nowhere. Byrom basically takes the word-salad in front of him and arranges it into nice patterns.

It’s an odd thing, this business of publishers getting people who either don’t know the language (Byrom, Bancroft) to “translate” sacred texts, or asking people of other religions (e.g. Mascaro, who was a Hindu). There’s nothing in principle wrong with a non-Buddhist translating a Buddhist text, but there can be problems when the translator has his own religious agenda.

Unfortunately, Byrom’s “rendering” is one of the more popular versions of the Dhammapada out there. It’s achieved the status of being “beloved” and many people will say it’s their favorite. Unfortunately, although poetic, Byrom’s Dhammapada is just not the Dhammapada.

This one was emailed to me this morning by Thomas Hughes in the UK:

“Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill.”

This quote is all over the web, and in many books, attributed to the Buddha. I believe, though, that these are the words of Dwight Goddard, an early 20th century translator, editor, and popularizer of Buddhist texts, perhaps best known for his Buddhist Bible.

This sentence is found in Goddard’s rendering of the Kakacupama Sutta (MN 21), although Goddard’s version is a mixture of selected highlights and his own commentary. Unfortunately he didn’t distinguish between the two, and so he ended up passing off his own words as those of the Buddha.

As to purity by words. There are five pairs of words that cause much disturbance in the world:—words that are suitable on some occasions and wrong on other occasions; words that fit certain facts and that do not fit other facts; some words are quiet, some are wild; some words are beneficial, some harmful; some words are sympathetic, some are hateful. Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them, for good or ill. If our minds are filled with sympathy and compassion, they will be resistent to the evil words we hear, and we must not let wild words pass our lips lest they arouse feelings of anger and hatred. The words we speak must always be words of sympathy and wisdom.

Suppose there is a man who wants to remove all the dirt from the ground…

And here’s the original sutta:

Monks, there are these five aspects of speech by which others may address you: timely or untimely, true or false, affectionate or harsh, beneficial or unbeneficial, with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. Others may address you in a timely way or an untimely way. They may address you with what is true or what is false. They may address you in an affectionate way or a harsh way. They may address you in a beneficial way or an unbeneficial way. They may address you with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. In any event, you should train yourselves: ‘Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic to that person’s welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading him with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with him, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.’ That’s how you should train yourselves.

Suppose that a man were to come along carrying a hoe & a basket, saying, ‘I will make this great earth be without earth…’

You’ll see why I refer to Goddard’s translation as a “rendering.” At best it’s rather a loose paraphrase of the original, and at worst he has inserted other material which is barely relevant to the original context of the teaching, which is about how we respond to others’ speech rather than on how we choose our own speech, so this sentence is totally out of place.

Where do these words come from? They may have been taken from another part of the Pali canon and relocated in the Kakacupama Sutta, but they may also be Goddard’s editorializing. If they are from elsewhere in the canon then they may, as with the rest of Goddard’s text, be highly paraphrased, so tracing any putative original may be tricky.

Dhammapada verse 133 makes a similar point:

Speak not harshly to anyone, for those thus spoken to might retort. Indeed, angry speech hurts, and retaliation may overtake you.

But this is more specific.

The general principle that our words can help or harm others is articulated by the Buddha’s disciple Vangisa:

One should speak only that word by which one would not torment oneself nor harm others. That word is indeed well spoken.

One should speak only pleasant words, words which are acceptable (to others). What one speaks without bringing evils to others is pleasant.

And there’s a rather extended exposition on this same principle, given by the Buddha to his son, Rahula:

“Whenever you want to perform a verbal act, you should reflect on it: ‘This verbal act I want to perform — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful verbal act, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful verbal act with painful consequences, painful results, then any verbal act of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction… it would be a skillful verbal action with happy consequences, happy results, then any verbal act of that sort is fit for you to do.

“While you are performing a verbal act, you should reflect on it: ‘This verbal act I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful verbal act, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both… you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not… you may continue with it.

“Having performed a verbal act, you should reflect on it… If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful verbal act with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it… you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction… it was a skillful verbal action with happy consequences, happy results, then you should stay mentally refreshed and joyful, training day and night in skillful mental qualities.”

Anyone aware of any closer parallels that Goddard might have been drawing from?

The graphic on this page is from The Quote Factory, which seems rather ironic. I wonder if they realize how many of their quotes are manufactured?

This particular one is all over the net, attributed to the Buddha. It’s actually by Osho, the “Guru Formerly Known as Bhagwan Shri Rajneesh,” who was famous for his numerous Rolls Royces, the wild sex he encouraged among his disciples, and the 1984 bioterror attack that his Oregon Commune launched on 751 citizens of The Dalles, Oregon, in an attempt to sway the outcome of an election so that their own candidates could win the county elections.

The quote is actually Rajneesh giving his interpretation of what the Buddha said, rather than an actual quote from the scriptures. It’s found in his Book of the Books – Volume 2 (1983). Rajneesh’s words start by being a reasonable paraphrase, but by the time they get to “intrinsic nature” (a concept alien to the early Buddhist texts) they are very far removed from anything the Buddha said.

Buddha said, “Somebody can throw a burning torch into the river. It will remain alight until it falls into the river. The moment it falls into the river, all fire is gone—the river cools it. You throw abuses at me—they are fire when you throw them, but the moment they reach me, in my coolness their fire is lost. They no longer hurt. You throw thorns—falling in my silence they become flowers. I act out of my own intrinsic nature.

Here’s the Buddha using the analogy of throwing a torch into a river. You’ll notice it’s not very pithy. The Buddha wasn’t much into sound-bites:

“Suppose, monks, a person were to come holding a burning grass-torch, and he were to say: ‘With this burning grass-torch I shall set fire to and scorch this river Ganges.’ What do you think, monks, could that person set fire to and scorch the river Ganges with a grass-torch?”

“No, indeed not, most venerable sir.”

“And why not?”

“Because, most venerable sir, the river Ganges is deep and without measure. It is not possible to set fire to and scorch the river Ganges with a burning grass-torch. On the contrary, that person will only reap weariness and frustration.”

“In the same way, monks, others may use these five modes of speech when speaking to you — speech that is timely or untimely, true or false, gentle or harsh, with a good or a harmful motive, and with a loving heart or hostility. In this way, monks, you should train yourselves: ‘Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall live projecting thoughts of universal love to that very person, making him as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of universal love — thoughts that have grown great, exalted and measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of hostility and ill will.’ It is in this way, monks, that you should train yourselves.”

The image of thorns (well, of something) being thrown and turning to flowers is from the Buddhist tradition, but not from the words of the Buddha. In post-canonical biographies of the Buddha, an incident where Shakyamuni is said to have been attacked by the armies of Mara (the personification of doubt) is dramatized, with Mara’s hordes hurling weapons at the Buddha. The weapons turn to flowers and fall harmlessly around him.

Here, for example, is an extract from Chapter 13 of Ashvaghosha’s Buddhacarita:

41. One [of Mara's horde], rising up like the sun in full splendour, rained down from the sky a great shower of live embers, as at the end of an aeon blazing Meru showers down the pulverised scoriae of the golden valleys.

42. But that shower of embers full of sparks, when scattered at the foot of the Bodhi tree, became a shower of red lotus-petals through the operation of the great saint’s boundless charity.

43. But with all these various scorching assaults on his body and his mind, and all these missiles showered down upon him, the Śākya saint did not in the least degree move from his posture, clasping firmly his resolution as a kinsman.

44. Then others spat out serpents from their mouths as from old decayed trunks of trees; but, as if held fast by a charm, near him they neither breathed nor discharged venom nor moved.

45. Others, having become great clouds, emitting lightning and uttering the fierce roar of thunderbolts, poured a shower of stones upon that tree, — but it turned to a pleasant shower of flowers.

A reader called Jim Conant wrote yesterday with an odd one:

I came across this supposed quote of the Buddha in a book called “Butterflies and Moths” by Dr. Walter Robert Corti. It says that

“In his last sermon before his death, Buddha spoke thus to the butterflies: ‘I thank you. You are my masters. From you I have learned more than from all the writings of the Brahmans.’”

I wonder if this is legit.

It certainly strikes me as being not only fake, but weird. And it appears in several books and magazines published since Dr. Corti’s book appeared in 1964.

It appears, according to Google Books, in a 1967 edition of “The Structurist,” which is “an international, interdisciplinary journal dealing with art, architecture, ecology, culture and communication.” That date may be questionable, though, since Google’s dating for journals often refers to the date that the first issue was published, rather than the issue in which the quotation appears.

It shows up in Briony Penn’s A Year on the Wild Side (1999), in Robert Michael Pyle’s Watching Washington Butterflies: An Interpretive Guide to the State’s 134 Species (1974), and also in his Handbook for Butterfly Watchers (1992).

I’ve only found one instance of this on the web, where freelance writer Kristin MacLeod quotes Pyle.

This quote is the lepidopterists’ equivalent of “The forest is a peculiar organism of unlimited kindness and benevolence that makes no demands for its sustenance and extends generously the products of its life activity; it provides protection to all beings, offering shade even to the axeman who destroys it,” which is so beloved of authors of books on forestry.

Goodness only knows where this comes from. The Buddha’s last sermon is in the Maha-Parinibbana Sutta, and there’s nothing there about butterflies. In fact I don’t recall the Buddha even mentioning butterflies, although there are some nice references to bees, such as this one from the Dhammapada:

As a bee gathers honey from the flower
without injuring its color or fragrance,
even so the sage
goes on his alms-round in the village.

Some early translators of this verse used the more poetic “butterfly” in place of the more workmanlike “bee” (bhamara) but a reverse search of my Pali-English dictionary failed to show up any reference to butterflies at all.

There are mentions of moths in the Pali canon, however, and the Buddha does make a teaching out of their headlong rush to destruction:

One time the Buddha was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta’s grove, at the garden of Anathapindika. At that time he was seated under the open sky, on a night of blinding darkness, while oil lamps were burning. And also at that time a great number of winged insects were flying around and falling into those oil lamps, thus meeting with misfortune, meeting with ruin, meeting with both misfortune and ruin. The Buddha saw those great number of winged insects flying around and falling into those oil lamps… And then the Buddha, understanding the meaning of this, gave utterance — at that moment — to this profound utterance:

Rushing up but then too far, they miss the point;
Only causing ever newer bonds to grow.
So obsessed are some by what is seen and heard,
They fly just like these moths — straight into the flames.

But he didn’t say that the moths were his teachers, or offer them thanks. The Buddha in fact made a point of saying that he had no teacher:

All-conquering, all-knowing am I,
with regard to all things, unadhering.
All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving:
having fully known on my own,
to whom should I point as my teacher?

But that’s a little pedantic. The Buddha did point out,

…in this world with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, in this generation with its brahmans and contemplatives, its royalty and common-folk, I do not see another brahman or contemplative more consummate in knowledge and vision of release than I, on whom I could dwell in dependence, honoring and respecting him.

And he went on to say that it was the Dhamma on which he would rely, “fully awakened, honoring and respecting it.”

But this isn’t to say that the Buddha did not learn from others. He was a flexible man, and in practical and sometimes in spiritual matters he would accept “input” from others or draw life lessons from his observations. In passages quoted above he draws lessons from the symbiosis of bee and blossom, and the destructive encounter of moth and flame. But I don’t think he ever thanked bees, moths, or butterflies, or acknowledged them as his “master.”

It’s rather odd, really, that the Buddha doesn’t seem to have mentioned the metamorphosis of caterpillars into butterflies as an example of change. It would seem to be an excellent analogy to draw upon.

One small thing: the reference to “the writings of the Brahmans” is anachronistic. The Brahmans were the priestly caste of the Buddha’s time, but their tradition at that time seems to have been oral rather than literary.

And did the Buddha ever say thank you? I’m not sure he did…

If anyone has a clue how this odd quote came about, please leave a comment or send me a message through the contact form.

Just a little too late for Easter comes this egg-themed Fake Buddha Quote:

“Our theories of the eternal are as valuable as are those which a chick which has not broken its way through its shell might form of the outside world.”

This is very fake. The image of a check pecking its way through a shell is one the Buddha used, but this sentence isn’t even close, and the language of “the eternal” is totally foreign and Hindu-sounding.

The “theories of the eternal” quote seems to come from a 1946 book by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, called Gautama the Buddha. The words are Radhakrishnan’s, not the Buddha’s. On page 31 he says:

“To use an image employed by him — our theories of the eternal are as valuable as are those which a chick which has not broken its way through its shell might form of the outside world. In this he resembles some of the greatest thinkers of the world.”

Radakrishnana the first Vice President of India and Indian’s second President. He was a statesman, a philosopher, and a Hindu, of course, so the “theories of the eternal” part of the quote is a reflection of his own religious beliefs rather than anything the Buddha might have said.

The image of breaking out of a shell is an analogy the Buddha used, although there was no reference to “the eternal.” For example, the Buddha described himself (in the Vinaya Pitaka) as being like a chick, first-hatched from a clutch of eggs:

“I having pierced through the shell of ignorance for the sake of creatures wrapped in ignorance, egg-born (as it were), am unique in the world, utterly enlightened with unsurpassed enlightenment. I myself am the world’s eldest and highest.”

So the Buddha’s awakening was a metaphorical breaking out of a shell of ignorance, but not in the context of “theories of the eternal,” unless it’s to suggest that the Buddha left behind any such theories when he broke through the shell of ignorance. But he certainly didn’t say “Our theories of the eternal are as valuable as are those which a chick which has not broken its way through its shell might form of the outside world.”

Lori wrote, saying:

A friend posted this quote in Facebook,

“A family is a place where minds come in contact with one another. If these minds love one
another the home will be as beautiful as a flower garden. But if these minds get out of harmony with one another it is like a storm that plays havoc with the garden.” Buddha

It didn’t sound like anything from the Buddha, so I Googled and found it here: http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/5229.html, but in my own searching, cannot find any suttas with this quote. I suspect it’s a false attribution.

This is indeed misattributed. It’s from a Japanese book, dating back to the 1960s in its English edition, called The Teaching of the Buddha.

There are some recognizable scriptures in this book, but for the most part it’s a book of modern interpretations of what Buddhism is, rather than a presentation of literally “the teaching of the Buddha.” It’s easy to see how the confusion would arise, given the title.

The forest is a peculiar organism of unlimited kindness and benevolence that makes no demands for its sustenance and extends generously the products of its life activity; it provides protection to all beings, offering shade even to the axeman who destroys it.
— Gautama Buddha

I’d never come across this one until someone called Upul, from Australia, asked me about it. It certainly strikes me as being fake, on the grounds that the language of “a peculiar organism” isn’t something he would have said. But it may be based on something canonical, or be an amalgamation of commentary and a genuine quotation.

It’s all over the place, once you look for it.

The earliest reference I’ve found to this in print is from 1941, in “Forest soils: origin, properties, relation to vegetation, and silvicultural management” (page 195) by Sergius Alexander Wilde, and published by the Soils Dept., College of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin. Unfortunately no source is given…

Dan Nussbaum wrote to me:

Hello Bodhipaksa. I really admire how calmly you deal with these
quotes.

Here’s one from a blogger who puts a thought, her own or someone
else’s, into the Buddha’s mouth:

“We all have monkey minds,” Buddha said.

Monkey mind, I read, is a Chinese coinage. I think that the Buddha
uses the second person plural here in itself is enough to expose the
quote. There isn’t any scripture where the Buddha does that, is there?

I’d never seen this as a quote attributed to the Buddha, although that doesn’t mean much, since I’m always coming across new Fake Buddha Quotes. I almost hesitate to review this quote because it’s not in wide circulation, I prefer to deal with those quotes that are. But the topic interests me, and if this particular quote does take off we’ll have its origin documented here.

It’s “Zen Mama” Betsy Henry who I think created this quote, giving us one of those rare moments when we can pinpoint the birth (on April 10, 2012) of a Fake Buddha Quote:

I recently read that Buddha imagined the human mind was filled with drunken monkeys who jumped around and were constantly chattering. “We all have monkey minds,” Buddha said. All these monkeys want our attention and steal our energy.

Henry seems to be drawing heavily from a Huffington Post article by BJ Gallagher, who uses the same expression, but who (quite properly) doesn’t put the words in quotation marks. Gallagher had written:

Buddha described the human mind as being filled with drunken monkeys, jumping around, screeching, chattering, carrying on endlessly. We all have monkey minds, Buddha said, with dozens of monkeys all clamoring for attention.

I think what Gallagher did is fine — simply paraphrasing what the Buddha said. But Zen Mama steps over the line by turning this into a direct quotation.

But did the Buddha talk about “monkey mind”? I’d be interested to know Dan’s source about the Chinese origin of this saying, but the Buddha did indeed use the metaphor of the mind being like a monkey in several places, and with varying meanings.

In Dhammapada verse 334, he said: “The craving of one given to heedless living grows like a creeper. Like the monkey seeking fruits in the forest, he leaps from life to life.”

Samyutta Nikaya 12.61 has “Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what’s called ‘mind,’ ‘intellect,’ or ‘consciousness’ by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.”

Sutta Nipata 4.4 has “Having left a former (object) they attach themselves to another, dominated by craving they do not go beyond attachment. They reject and seize, like a monkey letting go of a branch to take hold of another.”

And in Therigatha 19, Talaputa quotes the Buddha: “Said He who speaks the best, Best among mankind,
man-taming trainer, Physician Great indeed: ‘Unsteady, likened to a monkey is the mind, extremely hard to check when not rid of lust.’”

So it’s a metaphor he’s recorded as using. The phrase “monkey mind” isn’t found in the suttas, to the best of my knowledge, although according to my Pali dictionary the term kapicitta — “having a monkey’s mind” (meaning capricious, or fickle) — is found in the Jatakas.

It’s great that Dan spotted the use of the first person plural. This is very rare. I wouldn’t go as far as saying that he never used “we,” but it’s certainly rare, and he seems only to have used “we” when suggesting what other people should think or say, as in “Thus, friends, you should train yourselves: ‘Being Dhamma-devotee monks, we will speak in praise of jhana monks.’”

He used phrases like “All tremble at violence; all fear death” when referring to some widespread condition, rather than “we.” I know of at least one place when he used “you and I.”

I was surprised when someone wrote and asked about this one, saying that he doubted it was a genuine quote from the Buddha. It had never occurred to me that anyone would think this was a Buddhist quote and I’d never heard this described as Buddhist. And yet, seek, and ye shall find (also not one of the Buddha’s). It turns out that it’s all over the internet, including on at least one quotes site, although as a “Buddhist proverb” rather than directly attributed to the Buddha. But the quote is also ascribed to the Buddha, not just on websites, but in several books.

When I first began investigating this quote it quickly became clear that it likely had a Theosophical origin. If you’re not familiar with Theosophy (which was still popular in certain circles into the mid-20th century, and is still around), Wikipedia tell us,

In 1875 Helena Blavatsky, Henry Steel Olcott, and William Quan Judge co-founded The Theosophical Society. Blavatsky combined Eastern religious traditions with Western esoteric teachings to create a synthesis she called the Perennial Religion. She developed this in Isis Unveiled (1877) and The Secret Doctrine (1888), her major works and exposition of her Theosophy.

For example in a 1914 periodical, The Herald of the Star (a publication of a Theosophical organization, “The Order of the Star in the East”), we’re told that “in the various occult Orders which seem always to have existed throughout the world, it has been expressed in the words, ‘When the pupil is ready, the Master will appear.’”

And in Theosophy magazine of 1918, we have “When the disciple is ready, the Master will appear.”

In a Masonic publication from 1922, The New Age magazine, we also read “It is said, in what is called Occultism, that when the pupil is ready the Master will appear.” “Occultism” here is another term for Theosophy.

And in a 1927 publication, Steps to Self-Mastery, S. R. Parchment says:

“When the pupil is ready, the Master appears” is an old Theosophical statement, and I have been able on several occasions to prove its truthfulness.

Other forms are “When the Seeker is ready, the Master will appear.” “the Master will appear when the disciple is ready” “When the student is ready, the master will appear.”

“An old Theosophical statement” is as close as I got until the magnificent Barry Popik came to the rescue, with his awe-inspiring research skills. Mr. Popik, according to his website,

is a contributor to the Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary of American Regional English, Historical Dictionary of American Slang, Yale Book of Quotations and Dictionary of Modern Proverbs. Since 1990 he has also been a regular contributor to Gerald Cohen’s Comments on Etymology. He is recognized as an expert on the origins of the terms Big Apple, Windy City, hot dog, and many other food terms, and he is an editor of the Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink.

I bow deeply!

Mr. Popik traced the quote further back, to Light on the Path, by Mabel Collins. The third edition, which is on Google Books, is dated 1886, although presumably the first edition was published at least a year earlier.

Light on the Path is an odd work, describing itself as “A treatise written for the personal use of those who are ignorant of the Eastern wisdom, and who desire to enter within its influence.” The title page of the book is inscribed “Written down by M.C., Fellow of the Theosophical Society.” Why “written down by” rather than “written by”? The Theosophists claimed to be in contact with “Masters” or “mahatmas” in the East who dictated works to them. Therefore, M. C (Mabel Collins) presents herself not as an author, but as the Stenographer to the Awakened.

And on page 48 we find, “For when the disciple is ready the Master is ready also.”

Incidentally, the Enlightened Masters with whom the Theosophists were in mystical communion (some of the contact appears to have been telepathic) seem to have been influenced by the King James version of the Bible, for Light on the Path is full of passages like this:

If thou look not for him, if thou pass him by, then there is no safeguard for thee. Thy brain will reel, thy heart grow uncertain, and in the dust of the battle-field thy sight and senses will fail, and thou wilt not know thy friends from thy enemies. (p. 16)

Blavatsky, who founded the Theosophical Society, was widely accused of faking teachings, and of plagiarism. A New York Times review of K. Paul Johnson’s The Masters Revealed, a book exposing Blavatsky says:

In 1884, Richard Hodgson of the British Society for Psychical Research went to India to investigate Blavatsky and called her “one of the most accomplished, ingenious and interesting impostors in history.”

William Emmette Coleman, in The Sources of Madame Blavatsky’s Writings, points out that in one Blavatsy’s Isis Unveiled there were “2000 passages copied from other books without proper credit” and that one work she claimed was a translation of a Tibetan teaching, was in fact “a compilation of ideas and terminology from various nineteenth-century books.”

Faking an entire Sutra takes Fake Buddha Quotes to a whole new level! Madame Blavatksy, Fake Buddha Quoter Extraordinaire, I salute you!

Mabel Collins later regretted having claimed that the book was dictated to her by the Mahatmas. In a letter of April 18, 1889, she wrote:

So far as I can remember I wrote you that I had received “Light on the Path” from one of the Masters who guide Madame Blavatsky. I wish to ease my conscience now by saying that I wrote this from no knowledge of my own, and merely to please her [Blavatsky]; and that I now see I was very wrong in doing so.

Blavatsky herself maintained her cover story to the bitter end.

I’m quite sure this one is fake. In fact I have a strong suspicion that this “Buddha Quote” is from a 19th century children’s Christian periodical.

The quote in question is from an old book called The Teaching of Buddha: The Buddhist Bible: A Compendium of Many Scriptures Translated from the Japanese. The book contains a mixture of commentary and scripture, and although it is translated from the Japanese, some of the scripture is quite clearly from the Pali Dhammapada. The verse in question is smack bang in the middle of other identifiable Dhammapada quotations, but is not itself from the Dhammapada. I’ve put the verses from The Teaching of Buddha 9which are not numbered in the original) on the left, and, for comparison, translations from Access to Insight on the right.

Verses from Teaching of the Buddha	Verses from the Dhammapada
On a trail a man should travel with a company of equal mind or one who has a better mind; one had better travel alone than to travel with a foolish man.	61. Should a seeker not find a companion who is better or equal, let him resolutely pursue a solitary course; there is no fellowship with the fool.
An insincere and evil friend is more to be feared than a wild beast; a wild beast may would your body but an evil friend will wound your mind.	[???]
So long as a man can not control his own mind, how can he get any satisfaction from thinking such thoughts as, ” This is my son, ” or ” This is my treasure ? ” A foolish man suffers from such thoughts.	62. The fool worries, thinking, “I have sons, I have wealth.” Indeed, when he himself is not his own, whence are sons, whence is wealth?
To be foolish and to recognise that one is fool, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise.	63. A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed.
A foolish man, though he associates with a wise man, cannot understand the wise man’s wisdom.	64. Though all his life a fool associates with a wise man, he no more comprehends the Truth than a spoon tastes the flavor of the soup.

So we have a sequence of verses from the Dhammapada, with this rather odd interpolation, which is of an entirely different style.

What’s going on?

The “wild beast” verse may be a canonical verse that has been moved from elsewhere. Perhaps it’s something that crept into a Chinese version of the Dhammapada (although it’s not in Beal’s translation from the Chinese. Or perhaps it’s a bit of commentary that was slipped in. I rather suspect it was the last of these.

Here’s an interesting parallel with our “wild beast” quote:

He is much more to be feared than any lion you see at a wild beast show, because a lion can only hurt your body ; Satan can hurt your body and soul.

Here’s the Fake Buddha Quote for comparison:

An insincere and evil friend is more to be feared than a wild beast; a wild beast may would your body but an evil friend will wound your mind.

Coincidence? Perhaps. The quote is from The Children’s Friend (1852), edited by William Carus Wilson. Wilson, by another coincidence, shares part of his name with Paul Carus, an early translator of the Dhammapada, whom I mentioned above.

Wilson, according to Wikipedia was the inspiration for Mr Brocklehurst, the autocratic head of Lowood School, depicted by Charlotte Brontë in her 1847 novel Jane Eyre. He received an apology from the author after he considered suing her over the depiction.

And finally, here’s something the Buddha said to the householder Sigala about evil friends (papa-mitta);

“These four, young householder, should be understood as foes in the guise of friends:

he who appropriates a friend’s possessions,
he who renders lip-service,
he who flatters,
he who brings ruin.

“In four ways, young householder, should one who appropriates be understood as a foe in the guise of a friend:

he appropriates his friend’s wealth,
he gives little and asks much,
he does his duty out of fear,
he associates for his own advantage.

“In four ways, young householder, should one who renders lip-service be understood as a foe in the guise of a friend:

he makes friendly profession as regards the past,
he makes friendly profession as regards the future,
he tries to gain one’s favor by empty words,
when opportunity for service has arisen, he expresses his inability.

“In four ways, young householder, should one who flatters be understood as a foe in the guise of a friend:

he approves of his friend’s evil deeds,
he disapproves his friend’s good deeds,
he praises him in his presence,
he speaks ill of him in his absence.

“In four ways, young householder, should one who brings ruin be understood as a foe in the guise of a friend:

he is a companion in indulging in intoxicants that cause infatuation and heedlessness,
he is a companion in sauntering in streets at unseemly hours,
he is a companion in frequenting theatrical shows,
he is a companion in indulging in gambling which causes heedlessness.”