The first verse of the Dhammapada

[Eko Care]

The earliest interpretation of the Dhammapada's opening verses —that of the Peṭakopadesa— takes mano in verse 1 as referring to viññāṇakkhandha or manoviññāṇadhātu or manāyatana or manindriya accompanied by the three akusala roots (loba, dosa, moha). Dhammā is then taken to refer to the ten akusalakammapaṭha, from killing of living beings to wrong view. Verse 2 is the same, but with the consciousness arising with kusala roots and dhammā referring to the ten kusalakammapaṭha.

The Dhammapada Atthakathā follows the same interpretation, but expounding it in a more abhidhammic fashion, with mano defined as the eight kāmāvacara kusalacittas and dhammā as vedanā, saññā and saṅkhārā.

My preferred translation is that of K.R. Norman:
"Mental phenomena are preceded by mind, have mind as their leader, are made by mind..."

As for the others....
Buddharakkhita's and Piyadassi's renderings are marred by the gratuitous insertion of the word "all".

In Carter and Palihawadana's, "perception" is a very quirky rendering of mano, which doesn't correspond to any of the senses that this word has in the Suttas or Abhidhamma.

Thanissaro's "made of the heart" for manomayā sounds a little bizarre. "Heart" in my view would be best reserved for hadaya and not used for anything else.

Those of Mascaro, Fronsdal, Lal, Byrom and Maguire are not really translations at all, but ill-conceived paraphrases.

It's true that the meaning is more important than the phrasing:
But this doesn't mean that the phrasing is of no importance at all:

I agree I remember the first time I came across the Kalama Sutta, (I can never find the page of the internet where this particular translation is, but have a copy of it from the Book called "Prison Chaplaincy Guidelines for Zen Buddhism - By Kobutsu Malone") it is called the Kernel of Free inquiry but omits quite allot of the text as found on Access to insight! and it is called a distillation which to my mind gives more of an impression that this is the essence of what the sutta is about rather than an extract, when in fact it turns out that an extract would of been a more fitting word! as it only addresses the discernment of truth aspect of the sutta not the action aspect which I think is bigger and more important part of the Dialogue!

If anyone have a deviation/view from the general/classical view, he have to cherry-pick some of the "Neyyattha" phrases to claim that their view is true.
So they generally prefer the phrases like Dhamma, Sambhavesi, Antara Parinibbayi, Thatagata, Nama, Magga, Pabbhassara Citta ...etc.

[plabit]

What are your thoughts in relation to the first verse of the Dhammapada?

I read an article a few months ago online called "Dhammapada traditions and translations" by Dr Peter Gerard Friedlander National University of Singapore. I don't know anything about him other than having read this article.

Anyway, the article presents a translation of the first verse that you don't encounter in modern translations. (There's more to the article but that is what is relevant to this discussion.) The first Dhammapada translation in English only completed 16 chapters, and that was Gogerly's. Some might knee-jerk dismiss Gogerly's translation as absolutely useless, since (1) he only translated 16 chapters, and (2) he was a Christian missionary who was translating it for Christian missionaries to read in order to get some understanding of Buddhism in order to refute it.

However, Dr. Friedlander points out that Gogerly was translating in accordance with the understanding of monks who were his teachers in Pali in Sri Lanka at the time, and provides a Max Mueller quote denigrating Gogerly precisely for that (rather than translating by pure philology). So he is saying that the translation has value for Buddhists today in preserving the understanding of the Sri Lankan monks in the early 1800s as to the meaning of the Dhammapada.

Here is Gogerly's translation of verse 1, as Friedlander presents it in the article:

Mind precedes action. The motive is chief: actions proceed from the mind. If any one speak or act from a corrupt mind, suffering will follow the action, as the wheel follows the lifted foot of the ox.

On my own, having looked at Gogerly's translation (which I found on google books), I can add that he mentions there is a Sri Lankan paraphrase of it in their vernacular, and I think its safe to say that he is probably making use of that paraphrase in addition to the interpretation of his monk friends.

From Gogerly's intro

The Dhammapada (in Sinhalese, Dam Piyava)...The work has been translated into Sinhalese or rather paraphrased, and is much valued by the people.

He has a footnote on verse 1:

Mana: mind. This comprises the four grand divisions of sensations, perception, thought and consciousness and in this verse is used to signify the reasoning process, or thought: and the moral feeling, or motive. This verse is frequently quoted to shew that no action is criminal unless it proceed from an evil motive, and it is illustrated by the case of a blind priest, who while walking, unconsciously trod on a number of insects and killed them. His case was reported to Buddha, who decided that as the evil was not intended the priest was guiltless.

If indeed he is preserving the understanding of the monks (whom he calls priests) in Sri Lanka during his time, then verse 1 was understood to refer to motive that generates an action, and the vinaya implication concerning an action being excusable if there was no bad intention is understood to be the meaning of it.

That the verse is primarily concerned with "action" is clear from the tail end of the verse, i.e. "if one speak or act..." (speaking is also an action, of course). So this interpretation seems right to me.

To me it tends to be the real litmus test, signalling whether a Dhammapada translation is worthy of consideration beyond that point. Anything of the "we are what we think" variety should be swiftly disregarded as it misses the subtlety of the Buddha's speech and the care he goes to in that verse not to infer any kind of self.

Metta,
Retro.

I think "we are what we think" is not so bad, in that its like saying "mind creates your character" and obviously character is involved in determining what "action" you will do, so its not so far off. What's way too far off is "we create the world with our mind." This verse clearly is about acting with right intention, not about being teaching Solipsism.

[SarathW]

Mental phenomena are preceded by mind, have mind as their leader, are made by mind..."

Thank you for digging this old gem.
I am not a Pali expert or Abhidhamma expert but for me this verse is very simple in terms of Abhidhamma.
Any comments are welcome.
So I will write like this in Abhidhamma terms.
"Ctasika are preceded by Citta, have Citta as their leader, are made by Citta..."

If you need more details please read the following link.

https://accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors ... el322.html

[DooDoot]

Mind precedes action.

The above translation is not literally correct. "Dhamma" does not mean "action"; although "dhamma" can mean "path" or "doctrine of action". All behaviourial doctrines are types of "dharma" therefore "dharma" is not "action" itself but the underlying "views/ideologies" that dictate the generation & performance of actions. For example, when the Arahant Assaji met the seeker Upatissa (Sariputta), Upatissa asked: "Who is your teacher and what dharma does he teach/profess".

This verse clearly is about acting with right intention, not about being teaching Solipsism.

The above appears does not appear to be the position of the Dhammapada Atthakathā, which Eko Care appears to infer we will go to hell for deviating from. Is the Dhammapada Atthakathā another composition of Buddhaghosa?

[plabit]

Mind precedes action.

The above translation is not literally correct. "Dhamma" does not mean "action"; although "dhamma" can mean "path" or "doctrine of action". All behaviourial doctrines are types of "dharma" therefore "dharma" is not "action" itself but the underlying "views/ideologies" that dictate the generation & performance of actions. For example, when the Arahant Assaji met the seeker Upatissa (Sariputta), Upatissa asked: "Who is your teacher and what dharma does he teach/profess".

This verse clearly is about acting with right intention, not about being teaching Solipsism.

The above appears does not appear to be the position of the Dhammapada Atthakathā, which Eko Care appears to infer we will go to hell for deviating from. Is the Dhammapada Atthakathā another composition of Buddhaghosa?

Its not a pure philological translation but an interpretation, supposedly the one of Sri Lankan monks in the 1830-1840s. I thought I already said that.

Does the Dhammapada Atthakathā exist in English? I thought the Dhammapada Commentary was just the text called in English "Buddhaghosa's Parables" which is a bunch of long winded stories similar to Jataka Tales. If it is otherwise, please "enlighten" me.

[DooDoot]

Its not a pure philological translation but an interpretation

My translation is more literal but has the same meaning. "All doctrines of conduct (dhamma) are preceded by the intellect (mano), have the intellect as their leader, are made by the intellect..."

I thought the Dhammapada Commentary was just the text called in English "Buddhaghosa's Parables" which is a bunch of long winded stories similar to Jataka Tales. If it is otherwise, please "enlighten" me.

I can't enlightened you any more than as was posted about "a bunch of long winded stories similar to Jataka Tales".