no textual basis — baker

Simply because something is written in text, does not make it true! It becomes laughable when a self proclaimed expert, like the one in the Fake Buddha Quotes posted above, deems himself an authority on what was said and what was not said, simply based on ancient text, which are impossible to verify.
You are much too attached to your ideas Baker, and so you suffer when people disagree with you.
Buddha was right, when he observed that “attachment, is the ROOT cause of all suffering”.

A mixture of ignorance, opportunism, and no small dose of bigotry that would attribute to 'Eastern' belief any old claptrap. That said people attribute all sorts of shite to Socrates or Plato or Nietzsche or Einstein or MLK too.

What did Jesus say? I am son of God, or, son of Man?

partially it’s cultural appropriation - Buddhism is seen as a ‘cool’ tradition without all the pushy dogmatism of Christianity. Very popular in new-age circles.

Partially because people generally associate Buddhism with tolerance and ‘being relaxed’. You don’t want to be attributing bogus quotes to people who are going to put a bomb under your car for so doing.

And partially because even many genuine quotations from the Buddha are elliptical and open to interpretation. Even some of those listed as ‘fake’ are arguably the result of poor translation rather than deliberate obfuscation.

"My name isn't 'The Buddha'; it's 'Siddharta Gautama', dammit!"
-- The Buddha

That said people attribute all sorts of shite to Socrates or Plato or Nietzsche or Einstein or MLK too. — StreetlightX

And to ordinary people.

On that note, I was once talking to a woman online, she must have been about 50 at the time, who genuinely did not understand what a quote is. To her, interpreting and quoting was one and the same thing. (I discovered that after talking to her a bit.)

I don't understand how someone can confuse or conflate the two, but the experience with that woman convinced me that it's possible.

So strange.

I think the bible is also often misrepresented. But oke that's not the point

How is it that so many people feel no qualms about ascribing words to the Buddha for which they have no textual basis to assume he actually said those things or something like them? — baker

Anyway what does it matter whether the Buddha really said them. If you're reading a self help book do you really care what or who the author was if you find the content good for you and helpful in your everyday life . I happen to find the quotes from Buddhism and the videos about it such as Einzelgangers channel and I don't care whether the Buddha said exactly everything that's in them . Ancient philosophy has to be updated to apply to 21st society. Buddha also didn't have the benefit of modern science and psychology. We do. So it would be ridiculous not to update Ancient philosophy in the light of modern psychology and learning.

What is it about Buddhism that seems to invite so much ignorant but confident misrepresentation or even invention?

As @StreetlightX pointed out so accurate previously, I also think is opportunism with a mix of marketing. Back in the 1960's and 1970's was so common travel along Asia (Nepal and India specially) because Buddhism was cool and take drugs like ecstasy or trippies was funny. You end up having ignorant tourists visiting countries with a complex religion and customs. Also, it is even scary how marketing was part of it making and selling t-shirts or even tattoos. The famous music band called Nirvana was clearly part of it. But you can find out many other examples like the hippy wave.

What is it about Buddhism that seems to invite so much ignorant but confident misrepresentation or even invention? — baker

I think in the first place this may have to do with the fact that it is impossible to establish with 100% certainty which quotes can be attributed to the historical Buddha.

Second, the Buddhist texts form a large corpus that few Westerners bother to read.

Third, the phenomenon of fake or self-appointed "gurus" that probably started the minute gullible Westerners with spare cash began to take an interest in Indian religions.

Fourth, Buddhist teachings may also have been distorted for political reasons.

I feel it's a case of poor memory and the Buddha's spotless image as a preeminent sage. Someone who recalls a quote but not the person to whom the quote belongs to will try faer best to remember who spoke/wrote those words. As must be the usual, the first wise person that comes to mind is, well, the Buddha.

This phenomenon occurs with significant frequency in other areas. For example, if you're the only member in the family fond of cake and it so happens that, say, your mother discovers the cake she left on the table is gone, you are the prime suspect. Your reputation as a cake-lover will automatically lead people to associate missing cakes with you.

I think in the first place this may have to do with the fact that it is impossible to establish with 100% certainty which quotes can be attributed to the historical Buddha.
/.../
Fourth, Buddhist teachings may also have been distorted for political reasons. — Apollodorus

Certainly, there are text-critical issues, as with any text, and esp. with older ones. I am in no way suggesting that the authorship and authenticity of the Pali Canon (or any other religious scripture) is a matter that can easily be resolved, a trifle.

But the issue is this: If someone says "The Bible says X", or "The Koran says Y", it is perfectly normal to expect them to provide a reference to the Bible or the Koran, respectively, by name of book, chapter and verse. But this standard of reference is so often ignored when it comes to Buddhism. And with such confident ease!

(Granted, I've observed similar with Hindus and the Vedas: They confidently insist that the Vedas say this or that, but couldn't provide a reference if their life depended on it. Not to mention how deeply offended they feel that someone would request an actual textual reference, rather than just taking their word for gold.)

Second, the Buddhist texts form a large corpus that few Westerners bother to read.

And possibly don't even know about.

Since Gautama wrote nothing, how many of his earliest attributed "sayings" are already misattributions?

Do read my post above yours.

Since Gautama wrote nothing, how many of his earliest attributed "sayings" are already misattributions? — Janus

Does that mean that we can attribute to him whatever we want to?

Do read my post above yours. — baker

Does that mean that we can attribute to him whatever we want to? — baker

I don't say people can attribute whether they want; well actually they can, but we don't have to take them seriously. Obviously all we know of what he might have said is set out in the early Buddhist texts. Even if some or much of those consist in misattribution,they are the earliest sources and thus more likely to be accurate than later texts such as the Mahayana and Vajrayana texts which may very well contain many more extrapolations, which amount to misattributions.

Modern misattributions are obviously even further removed both temporally and culturally, but nonetheless a misattribution is a misattribution, and unfortunately since he wrote nothing we have no way of determining just what is and what is not misattributing what was said by Gautama. That said, if we take the earliest texts as authoritative then we should be able to clearly identify anything which does not tally with those.

there's a fair amount of uniformity in the Pali literature. The history of its composition is that after the Buddha's final Nirvāṇa, there was an assembly of monks, chaired by the Buddha's attendant, Ananda, who dutifully recited and codified the collected teachings of the Buddha, which began to assume the form that has been handed down to this day, the 'tipitaka', or 'three baskets' (so called because when they were finally written down, they were inscribed on palm-leaves which were carried in baskets). But consider that in pre-modern times, many such texts were only ever stored in the memories of its exponents, sometimes for millenia before being committed to writing, so the fact of there being verbal or aural traditions doesn't necessarily imply that they were corrupted in transmission.

In modern form, printed and bound, the Pali canon comprises a large set of volumes:



By comparison with what is in those texts, it's really not that hard to spot fake Buddha quotes.

Incidentally, there's a good essay in Tricycle magazine about recent discoveries of the provenance of the very early Buddhist texts. This article was included in the course materials in my course in Buddhist Studies. The gist of it is, there is probably no single authoritative version of the Buddha's teachings, in that there are parallel re-tellings of many of the suttas (sayings) in various dialects - no 'single source of truth' has been unearthed. Even despite that, however, posters admonishing you to 'live fully in the present moment' can be safely assigned to the domain of 'fake Buddha quotes'.

Even despite that, however, posters admonishing you to 'live fully in the present moment' can be safely assigned to the domain of 'fake Buddha quotes'. — Wayfarer

Maybe that's why Lin Chi reportedly said " If you meet the Buddha, kill him" or why it was Huineng (if memory serves) who referred to zen as a "special transmission outside the scriptures". According to my own extensive reading of zen texts the essence of zen teaching is precisely to live fully in the present moment. Which is not to deny that certain practices and observances are advocated to that end.

Granted, I've observed similar with Hindus and the Vedas: They confidently insist that the Vedas say this or that, but couldn't provide a reference if their life depended on it. Not to mention how deeply offended they feel that someone would request an actual textual reference, rather than just taking their word for gold — baker

Correct. The stories they sometimes come up with are .... well, hard to believe. Or if you do believe them then be sure to take a large grain of salt with it. Perhaps Buddhists tend to be more down-to-earth.

Personally, I've only read the Dhammapada, Visuddhimagga, some Jataka stories, and the Tibetan Book of the Dead. (I may read more in my next life if I have the time :smile: ) But if there were any “Buddha quotes” that I found interesting or important, I would definitely try to check the sources before I believed them.

Come to think of it, perhaps Buddhists tend to be more relaxed about non-Buddhists misquoting their texts and don’t rise up in arms every time it happens. Possibly, they also are less inclined to protest as they have less influence in the West than Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

I don't say people can attribute whether they want; well actually they can, but we don't have to take them seriously. — Janus

I'm just completely amazed by their confidence, and I wonder what role it plays in spiritual development.

Modern misattributions are obviously even further removed both temporally and culturally, but nonetheless a misattribution is a misattribution, and unfortunately since he wrote nothing we have no way of determining just what is and what is not misattributing what was said by Gautama. That said, if we take the earliest texts as authoritative then we should be able to clearly identify anything which does not tally with those. — Janus

The gist of it is, there is probably no single authoritative version of the Buddha's teachings, in that there are parallel re-tellings of many of the suttas (sayings) in various dialects - no 'single source of truth' has been unearthed. — Wayfarer

Of course. If you study the early texts and discuss them with other people who have also studied them, then, even though you might be working with different translations (or even different versions of the Tipitaka), still, there characteristically emerges an understanding that contextualizes or transcends the differences.

Who is this man? Sounds like a humble man of peace. Unlikely he survived long let alone was able to manage his legacy. Basically unless you met the guy, anyone's guess is as good as the next.

Ancient philosophy has to be updated to apply to 21st society. Buddha also didn't have the benefit of modern science and psychology. We do. So it would be ridiculous not to update Ancient philosophy in the light of modern psychology and learning. — Ross

Before doing so, it seems it would behoove to first look into what ancient philosophy actually said, so that we know what exactly it is that we're updating/improving.

:up:

Before doing so, it seems it would behoove to first look into what ancient philosophy actually said, so that we know what exactly it is that we're updating/improving. — baker

That's true. There have been many scholars who have tried to discover what the Ancients actually said. On the other hand the Ancients got many many things wrong or their ideas would not be appropriate for a modern 21st century liberal democracy for example although Aristotle's Ethics is the basis for contemporary Virtue Ethics his views on women and slavery are incompatible with present day views. As regards the Buddha he was teaching at a time when nearly everyone believed in spirits and religion, and existence in a previous life but for a lot of people nowadays they don't believe. So he needs to be updated.

So you have thoroughly studied and realized paṭiccasamuppāda and found it lacking?

Do tell us how you improved on it!

So you have thoroughly studied and realized paṭiccasamuppāda and found it lacking?

Do tell us how you improved on it! — baker

I don't know what that is. I don't have an in depth knowledge of all of Eastern philosophy.
What I'm saying is that 21st century society is so different and far removed from ancient times that we can't just literally take the words of someone 2000 years ago . It has to be adapted to modern culture. All ages throughout history have done that. Even the ancients would have had their own interpretation of earlier texts.