Is this fake Buddha quote, 'Everything that has a beginning has an end ', synonymous with Dhammapada verse, ‘All conditioned things are impermanent', the Buddha quote from the Dhammapada, verse 277? If it's not synonymous, can somebody explain to me, how it's semantically different?

In Dhammapada, verse 129, Buddha states: > All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill. Taking this at face value, obviously however, not everyone fears death. People who had their amygdala removed or atrophied due to a disease do not have fear of death. Likewise, psychopaths seem to have no such fear. Many people do not tremble at violence at all, like psychopaths and military personnel. Then Buddha says that to not kill or cause another to kill, one should put themselves into another's shoes. But many people are incapable of this, like people with autism spectrum disorder. Taking all this into account and given that what Buddha says here seems to be wrong, how are we to understand this? (I believe this question would only apply to the Theravada Buddhists since AFAIK Mahayana does not acknowledge the Pali Cannon and therefore the Dhammapada, though of course, everyone is free to answer).

I'm looking for translations of the Dhammapada that are freely available to quote in part or in full. I would like a variety of alternative translation so can anyone give a comprehensive list - online and/or printed publications. Many Thanks

I'm looking for a collection of the entire Dhammapada in Ebook format (not PDF-format) that can be read in the Kindle App. Free or paid. I've been looking myself without finding anything. Maybe someone else has better luck than me. The book has to contain all Dhammapada verses. Thanks.

I know a person who is fairly expert on Dhamma and in early times practised well; meditating up to 10 hours per day. But today this person spends at least five hours per day doing physical rehabilitation due to an unfortunate injury. Yet this person is constantly harassed by a troll monk who insists this rehabilitating person become a monk. While this person spends 5 hours per day doing rehabilitation, this monk appears to spend 5 hours per day trolling the internet rather than practising meditation. For example, sometimes when this person wants to sit, their body must walk. Other times, when this person wants to walk, their body must sit. Sometimes they want to quietly breathe, but the body may cough (which would disturb other monks). What happens to the abusive monk whose actions can cause distress & trauma (to a similar fool)? Are there any suttas about what happens to evil characters and uncontrolled men wearing the saffron robe?

Dhammapada Verse 61: ***If a person seeking a companion cannot find one who is better than or equal to him, let him resolutely go on alone; there can be no companionship with a fool.*** This is obviously self preserving pragmatism of the Aesop's Fables variety, it doesn't require a Buddha to say this, so perhaps there is a deeper meaning I don't spot. Besides, I spot a couple of problems. **One**: For me to associate with someone better, that person would have to accept me, his/her inferior. Ergo, one of us must break this rule and accept an inferior (not necessarily a fool) as partner or companion. **Two**: This doesn't sound very loving and compassionate. Fools will remain fools without the company of intelligent partners or teachers, is it not? Plus, the Buddha himself tolerated Devadutta and others who were often comically stupid in his order. The accompanying story of the Thera who blindly trusts his disciples is a little too simplistic, how is it that a senior teacher (Thera) needed to be schooled on such a trivial principle of common sense? If someone is obviously lazy and scheming, even treacherous, he or she should not be trusted. Did the Thera get undermined by a false sense of duty or compassion?

When I picked up a version of the Dhammapada (Parallax Press) and read through I came across an interesting verse in this specific book it was Chapter 24: Craving . Forgive me for not knowing the verses, I'm new to the text. The verse says: > A man will be swept along > By the thirty-six streams of sensual pleasure, > Borne on the strong currents > Of his craving toward tempting objects. What are the 'thirty-six' streams of sensual pleasure? Is it some arbitrary enumeration, or is there some further writings detailing the 'thirty-six' streams of sensual pleasure?

> The Story of the Son of Mahadhana > Neither living the chaste life nor gaining wealth in their youth, they waste away like old herons in a dried-up lake depleted of fish. > Neither living the chaste life nor gaining wealth in their youth, they lie around, misfired from the bow, sighing over old times. I imagined "gaining wealth in their youth" would mean spiritual wealth, after all a lot of materially rich old people I know do **sigh** at old age, because material pleasures are often best enjoyed in youth. Yet, the back story seems to indicate the Buddha did mean material wealth, which is odd. Granted, being rich and old is better than poor and old, still, old age to the unwise is great suffering. Of course, Buddhism doesn't *ab initio* criticize wealth, or beauty. They are said to accrue as a result of good deeds, and are desirable as long as they don't interfere in bettering one's virtues and mind. Still, it's not a perfectly flawless argument to equate pious virtue and shrewdness in wealth. Billionaires could even make a case of being equal to Arhats, more or less, as I currently understand this verse. This is made all the more odd on account of the Buddha's own rejection of wealth and kingdom. Can someone shed more light? Are there two sets of guidelines that the Buddha advocated? One for those enmeshed in Samsara, and another for those gone forth? > The Story of the Son of Mahadhana > While residing at the Migadaya wood, the Buddha uttered Verses (155) and (156) of this book, with reference to the son of Mahadhana, a rich man from Baranasi. > The son of Mahadhana did not study while he was young; when he came of age he married the daughter of a rich man, who, like him, also had no education. When the parents on both sides died, they inherited eighty crores from each side and so were very rich. But both of them were ignorant and knew only how to spend money and not how to keep it or to make it grow. They just ate and drank and had a good time, squandering their money. When they had spent all, they sold their fields and gardens and finally their house. Thus, they became very poor and helpless; and because they did not know how to earn a living they had to go begging. One day, the Buddha saw the rich man's son leaning against a wall of the monastery, taking the leftovers given him by the samaneras; seeing him, the Buddha smiled. > The Venerable Ananda asked the Buddha why he smiled, and the Buddha replied, "Ananda, look at this son of a very rich man; he had lived a useless life, an aimless life of pleasure. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the first stage of his life he would have been a top-ranking rich man; or if he had become a bhikkhu, he could have been an arahat, and his wife could have been an anagami. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the second stage of his life he would have been a second rank rich man, or if he had become a bhikkhu he could have been an anagami, and his wife could have been a sakadagami. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the third stage of his life he would have been a third rank rich man, or if he had become a bhikkhu he could have been a sakadagami, and his wife could have been a sotapanna. However, because he had done nothing in all the three stages of his life he had lost all his worldly riches, he had also lost all opportunities of attaining any of the Maggas and Phalas." I'd like to contrast this with another verse from the Dhammapada which is an emphatic put down of worldly gains. > **Dhammapada Verse 178 ** > Anathapindikaputtakala Vatthu > *Pathabya ekarajjena saggassa gamanena va sabbalokadhipacce na sotapattiphalam varam.* > Verse 178: Far better than sovereignty over the earth, or far better than going to the abodes of the devas, or far better than ruling supreme over the entire universe, is (the attainment of) Sotapatti Fruition.

Chapter 21 of the Dhammapada is titled Miscellaneous or Varied Verses or similar depending on the exact translation. Why do all the other chapters have descriptive headings and themes such as Flowers and Chapter 21 just has this generic title and generic theme?

I am trying to understand the meaning of the verse below: Verse 30 from Dhammapada . > *Appamadena maghava > devanam setthatam gato > appamadam pasamanti > pamado garahito sada.* > "By Heedfulness did Indra become the overlord of the gods. Heedfulness > is ever praised, and heedlessness ever despised." - Acharya > Buddharakkhita's translation of Dhammapada 30 . In above verse the word "*maghava*" is a Vedic word which means Lord Indra of Vedic times. During "Vedic Brahmanism", Lord Indra is superior of all gods. Does this verse means that Buddha accepted the existence of Gods? Also the verse mentions that because of *appamada*, Indra become the overlord. Does it mean Lord Indra has the insight of Nibbana ? Appreciate your answer.

In this verse of the Dhammapada, > Those who in youth have not led the holy life, or have failed to > acquire wealth, languish like old cranes in the pond without fish. Dhammapada 155. Do those who have failed to acquire wealth refer to those who have decided to remain householders and didn't manage to properly earn a living, in order to for example raise a family, or does wealth refer here to spiritual qualities and virtues ? With metta.

That is a question that emerged from a previous discussion, but here I would like to focus on this story. From the background story: "Venerable Sir, is the wife of the hunter who is a sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has been getting things like nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he goes out hunting?" To this question the Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus, the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed. The wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for him. Just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any evil." Question: Does it mean that if you work for a company that sells weapons or intoxicants and you do not directly sell or produce it, you also had no opportunity to find another job (it is what you got to pay your bills), you are blameless like the wife of the hunter?

What all are the important books, that are part of Buddhism, other than Dhammapada?

I am only getting fake and/or altered versions of the Dhammapada. This is a serious problem. They get changed regularly, sometimes a verse is just completely false as it describes something that is not Right View, other times the translations are poor, some verses seem untouched. Is anyone else experiencing this?

Can Mano be translated as intellect, cognition, reason; and citta as emotions? How then would the first verse in the Dhammapada be translated?

In the Dhammapada in the chapter 20 - The Path it says > "I will make this my winter home have another house for the monsoon > and dwell in a third for during the summer". Lost in such fancies, one > forgets his final destination. (translation by Eknath Easwaran ) Although it clearly can't have been written with this intent - to me this reads like very pertinent critique of modern consumerism and capitalism. A lot of us find ourselves practicing in societies where this is the prevalent ethos so this feels relevant. Is there something about modern capitalism that inherently conflicts with Buddhism? Or is it possible to find quotes from texts or established teachers that are more supportive of the kind of capitalism//consumerism that we find ourselves in now?

I am writing a romance book. In it one of my character's recites a portion of the Dhammapada. If I publish my book, will I be violating any copyright laws? How would I go about getting permission to put the quote in my book?

I had this question yesterday, when I was using my navigation system to navigate somewhere completely new in my car. I, by accident, took a wrong turn that resulted in multiple miles of detour. When I realized my mistake, *I verbally spoke an explicit word out loud*. I was completely alone in the car at the time. I immediately realized my second mistake in speaking as such and I verbally corrected myself to a non-explicit word. The Noble Eightfold Path puts emphasis on right speech, and not saying anything to harm others and self. I was not meaning to harm anyone in my outburst, but to express the anguish of a delayed trip. Buddhism writings (specifically the Dhammapada) also put emphasis on sage qualities, more specifically in the quote "a sage tames himself". Certainly what I did in that situation was not a kusula action, and thus can help breed other akusula actions. **My question is:** Is it bad practice to display this kind of poor self-control when in solitude?

Chapter 16 of The Dhammapada seems to say that we should let nothing and no-one be dear. From this translation : > Practicing what one shouldn't, Not practicing what one should, Having > abandoned the goal, Clinging to what is dear, One comes to envy those > who practice. > > Don't get entangled With what you long for or dislike. Not seeing what > you long for is suffering; So also is seeing what you dislike. > > Therefore, do not turn anything Into something longed for, For then > it's dreadful to lose. Without longing or dislike, No bonds exist. Does this conflict with the idea of having friends and family? Or is it simply stating that we should avoid being overattached to any one person, experience, or thing?

In the Dhammapada there is a verse that says "To his own ruin the fool seeks knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness". Is there a distinction between wisdom and knowledge? It seems to me that seeking knowledge would be a good thing unless maybe you didn't do anything good with that knowledge. Please elucidate. Thank you.