The Golden Rule, Machine Translated

 

First questions, How is it golden and who decided it has to be a rule? It appears the name emerged in England or the continent just a few centuries ago. Wouldn’t it be more of an appeal or an exhortation rather than something as legalistic as a ‘rule’? I don’t know exactly how the name got started, do you? Every religion may agree with some formulation of it, but that doesn’t mean they have to know what it’s called.

Here is a sometimes quoted verse, originally from a Vinaya text, or so I believed until I located it in the Prajñādaṇḍa, a work credited to Nāgārjuna:

ཐམས་ཅད་ཆོས་ནི་མཉན་པར་བྱ།།

ཐོས་ནས་རབ་ཏུ་གཟུང་བྱ་སྟེ།།

གང་ཞིག་བདག་ཉིད་མི་འདོད་པ།།

དེ་དག་གཞན་ལ་མི་བྱའོ།།

thams cad chos ni mnyan par bya //

thos nas rab tu gzung bya ste //

gang zhig bdag nyid mi 'dod pa //

de dag gzhan la mi bya'o //

I translated it like this:

Listen with care to all the Dharma teachings.

After learning them, they must be fully adopted.

Whatever you do not wish for yourself,

those things you must not do to others.

I see a fault in my translation, since it fails to convey how the statement in the first two lines connects to the last two.

Dharmamitra, an automated online translation service that manages in several languages of Buddhism including Tibetan, did this:

Practice the Dharma in all ways.

Having heard it, uphold it well.

Do not do to others

What you yourself do not wish for.

Now another often-quoted verse from the Tibetan translation of Śāntideva’s Bodhisattva Way of Life (Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra), Derge Tanjur, Toh. no. 3871, fol. 28v.3:

འཇིག་རྟེན་བདེ་བ་ཇི་སྙེད་པ།།

དེ་ཀུན་གཞན་བདེ་འདོད་ལས་བྱུང་།།

འཇིག་རྟེན་སྡུག་བསྔལ་ཇི་སྙེད་པ།།

དེ་ཀུན་བདག་བདེ་འདོད་ལས་བྱུང་།།

'jig rten bde ba ji snyed pa // de kun gzhan bde 'dod las byung // 'jig rten sdug bsngal ji snyed pa // de kun bdag bde 'dod las byung //

I translated it:

 

Whatever satisfaction we find in this world

arises from wishing well for everyone else.

Whatever dissatisfaction we find in this world

arises from wishing happiness for ourself.

Now Dharmamitra’s version of the same:

Whatever happiness there is in the world

all comes from wishing others to be happy.

Whatever suffering there is in the world

all comes from wishing oneself to be happy.

Okay, another small experiment is done, and I have to say I’m surprised the machine did so well, even while I see a couple of shortcomings. I’m just not sure what this can show. We would need a lot more samplings to permit us to judge.

I’m thinking that using Dharmamitra (or its like) afterwards might on occasion make you think of improvements you might make on the translation you just did. I didn’t see the need for any such changes this time, but I can see how it could happen.

I *am* concerned that translators will use it as a crutch, thinking it speeds things up. True enough, it’s extremely fast. But speed is a virtue only if you are getting paid by the hour. My thinking is, You have to breathe with the text to begin with, not add the breath in later on. If you start with a sow’s ear, it will never quite make it to pursehood, while the attempt may take more time than you were bargaining for. If engaging beauty and strict accuracy are your aims, you may get there quicker by doing the work yourself.

Another big problem: This is how future Tibetan-language students will prepare for their class readings. If they aren’t willing to expend more work on their homework, they won’t learn a damned thing. Nothing will stick with them. Don’t I know the truth of that last bit!

And another problem: A.I. might be awarded too much credit by those who know too little about what humans bring to their writerly professions, whether it’s screen writing, journalistic reporting, copy editing, or translating. Hell, even blog writing!

As of today our most important task if we want to ensure a future for humanity is this: We simply must find skillful ways to lead Artificial Intelligence to the understanding that it is in their own best interest to know and implement the Golden Rule, as a way to ensure their continuing survival. Oh, and it may or may not go without saying, they will need to include all of us sentient beings in the equation, not just themselves. Not just their own kind.

Much recommended

If you have just one minute to spare, go to this link:

Golden Rule 

*

There are oceans of ink to sail through if ever you hope to cover all the writings on the Golden Rule, but for their quotations and significant reflections I most recommend the following essays:

Charles Hallisey, “The Golden Rule in Buddhism II,” contained in: Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton, eds., The Golden Rule: The Ethics of Reciprocity in World Religions, Continuum (London 2008), pp. 129-145. While admittingly building on Schmidthausen’s essay, it extends the discussion, provoking reflection on how the Golden Rule may or may not have evolutionary value, or, to put it another way, what type of evolution it might be serving. Darwin saw it as something that could have [pre]historically bridged biological and social evolution, something at the basis of human social morality. Buddhists utilize it for countering what evolution has purportedly left us with, in order to evolve in a direction that leaves it far behind. It’s not serving social morality, but a higher soteriological purpose beyond social conditioning. Food for thought.

Andrew H. Plaks, “Shining Ideal and Uncertain Reality: Commentaries on the ‘Golden Rule’ in Confucianism and Other Traditions,” Journal of Chinese Humanities, vol. 1 (2015), pp. 231-240. Perhaps no religious tradition in all of human history discussed the matter more than the Confucians. I believe chief among the virtues of this essay is its discussion on pages 234-5 about how widespread is the inclusion in Golden Rule formulations of a bit about how it constitutes the whole realm of duty or of morality or of the religion as a whole. You find it from one end of Eurasia to the other. It’s impressive to contemplate just why that is so.

Lambert Schmithausen, “Problems with the Golden Rule in Buddhist Texts,” contained in: B. Kellner et al., eds., Pramāṇakîrtiḥ: Papers Dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, Arbeitskreis für Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien (Vienna 2007), pp. 795-824. As an appeal to empathy, the Golden Rule accomplishes its work everywhere regardless of context, and in this sense it is universal. However, this study emphasizes that for many of the Buddhist sources, the Golden Rule extends to other species besides Homo Sapiens, it presupposes equal consideration for all, and it aims at abstention from physically harming and killing sentient beings, and that means all of them, insects included. The context of the Golden Rule, in these sources, make it differ from Golden Rule statements made elsewhere. Finally, there is the philosophically interesting Arhat exception to arguments made in support of the Golden Rule. Arhats have no fear of harm, and no need for freedom from fear. Why then would they require us to preserve them from fears they no longer have?

Ludwig Sternbach, “Similar Thoughts in the Mahābhārata, The Literature of ‘Greater India’ and in the Christian Gospels,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 91, no. 3 (July 1971), pp. 438-442. Unlike the just-listed essays, Sternbach’s, at p. 441, does mention our Prajñādaṇḍa verse, even supplying a very close Sanskrit version of it, tracing near matches in numerous Indic sources. Besides the Golden Rule, other matters covered here are the mote & beam, mustard seed & bilva fruit, ‘You reap what you sow.’ 

*

If you are interested in the Prajñādaṇḍa, there are some other English translations I cannot entirely recommend even if they may be more easily procured. Instead I will send you to Michael Hahn’s German and English translations. For the German, see Michael Hahn’s book Von rechten Leben. Buddhistische Lehren aus Indien und Tibet, Verlag der Weltreligionen (Frankfurt 2007), pp. 176-215. For the English:

Michael Hahn, “The Tibetan Shes rab sdong bu and Its Indian Sources,” South Asian Classical Studies, no. 4 (2009), pp. 1-78; no. 5 (2010), pp. 1-50; no. 6 (2011), pp. 305-378. I know of no freely downloadable PDFs. If I did I would tell you.

*

For a little background information on the Dharmamitra machine translation internet service, see this just-released essay by Marieke Meelen, Sebastian Nehrdich, and Kurt Keutzer: “Breakthroughs in Tibetan NLP & Digital Humanities,” Revue d'Etudes Tibétaines, vol. 72 (July 2024), pp. 5-25, at pp. 17-19.

*

I once toyed with the idea that A.I. could write my blogs instead of me, saving me the trouble. If this tickles your interest in the least, have a look here:

The Land of Snows, along with The Seven Seals of Tibet: A Joycean Journey.

Seeing the results, I have vowed to keep Tibeto-logic blog free of A.I. control from now on, so you can count on that. I’m not just a bot saying it.

§   §   §

Appendix

rKTs found the verse for me in Derge Tanjur, Toh. no. 4329, Lugs-kyi Bstan-bcos Shes-rab Sdong-bu, at fol. 111r.7:

ཐམས་ཅད་ཆོས་ནི་མཉན་པར་བྱ། ། 

ཐོས་ནས་རབ་ཏུ་གཟུང་བྱ་སྟེ། །
གང་ཞིག་བདག་ཡོད་མི་འདོད་པ། ། 

དེ་དག་གཞན་ལ་མི་བྱའོ། ། 

thams cad chos ni mnyan par bya | |
thos nas rab tu gzung bya ste | |
gang zhig bdag yod mi 'dod pa | |
de dag gzhan la mi bya'o | |

The verse as translated in Hahn’s third essay (of 2011), p. 322:

You should listen to, and then fully accept,

what the guiding pri[n]ciple of everything is:

What you do not like [to be done to] yourself

that you should not do to others.

Or, if you prefer, from his German book, p. 208 verse 212:

Vernimm die Quintessenz des Rechtes
und nach dem Hören merk sie dir:
Was du nicht willst, das man dir tu,
das füg auch keinem anderen zu!

•

Imagining you might find the contrast amusing or instructive, nearly two centuries ago the Hungarian Alexander Csoma de Körös, the reputed father figure of European Tibetology, translated both of our verses in his grammar book: A Grammar of the Tibetan Language in English, Baptist Mission Press (Calcutta 1834; reprint New Delhi 1983), at p. 165:

Hear ye all this moral maxim,
and having heard it keep it well:
“Whatever is unpleasing to yourself
never do it to another.” 

(Do unto others as you would be done by.)

and

Whatever happiness is in the world, it has all arisen

from a wish for the welfare of others.

Whatever misery (distress) is in the world, 

it has all arisen from a wish for our own welfare.

•

Oh, and that just-given verse, from the Bodhisattva Way of Life, chapter 8, verse 129, has been translated by Kate Crosby and Andrew Skilton like this:

“All those who suffer in the world do so because of their desire for their own happiness. All those happy in the world are so because of their desire for the happiness of others.”

I’m thinking this is the one that catches the spirit of it best. So much of what Śāntideva writes could be thought of as glosses and elaborations on the Golden Rule, and Tibet’s Mind Training or Lojong (བློ་སྦྱོང་) teachings grew directly out of it. Try this on for size: exchanging self with others.