[1. Dharma, though clear in its meaning, is difficult to translate. It has different meanings in different systems of philosophy, and its peculiar application in the phraseology of Buddhism has been fully elucidated by Burnouf, Introduction a l'Histoire du Buddhisme, p. 41 seq. He writes: 'Je traduis ordinairement ce terme par condition, d'autres fois par lois, mais aucune de ces traductions n'est parfaitement complete; il faut entendre par dharma ce qui fait qu'une chose est ce qu'elle est, ce qui constitue sa nature propre, comme l'a bien montre Lassen, a l'occasion de la celebre formule, "Ye dharma hetuprabhava."' Etymologically the Latin for-ma expresses the same general idea which was expressed by dhar-ma. See also Burnouf, Lotus de la bonne Loi, p. 524. Fausboll translates: 'Naturae a mente principium ducunt,' which shows that he rightly understood dharma in the Buddhist sense. Gogerly (see Spence Hardy, Eastern Monachism, p. 28) translates: 'Mind precedes action,' which, if not wrong, is at all events wrongly expressed; while Professor Weber's rendering, 'Die Pflichten aus dem Herz folgern,' is quite inadmissible. D'Alwis (Buddhist Nirwana, p. 70 seq.), following the commentary, proposes to give a more technical interpretation of this verse, viz. 'Mind is the leader or all its faculties. Mind is the chief (of all its faculties). The very mind is made up of those (faculties). If one speaks or acts with a polluted mind, then affliction follows him as the wheel follows the feet of the bearer (the bullock).' To me this technical acceptation seems not applicable here, where we have to deal with the simplest moral precepts, and not with psychological niceties of Buddhist philosophy. It should be stated, however, that Childers, who first (s.v. dhamma) approved of my translation, seems afterwards to have changed his opinion. On p. 120 of his excellent Pali Dictionary he said: 'Three of the five khandhas, viz. vedana, sanna, and sankhara, are collectively termed dhamma (plur.), "mental faculties," and in the first verse of Dhammapada the commentator takes the word dhamma to mean those three faculties. But this interpretation appears forced and unnatural, and I look upon Dr. Max Muller's translation, "All that we are is the result of what we have thought," as the best possible rendering of the spirit of the phrase mano pubbangama dhamma.' But on p. 577 the same scholar writes: 'Of the four mental khandhas the superiority of vinnana is strongly asserted in the first verse of Dhammapada, "The mental faculties (vedana, sanna, and sankhara) are dominated by Mind," they are governed by Mind, they are made up of Mind." That this is the true meaning of the passage I am now convinced; see D'Alwis, Nirwana, pp. 70-75.' I do not deny that this may have been the traditional interpretation, at all events since the days of Buddhaghosa, but the very legend quoted by Buddhaghosa in illustration of this verse shows that its simpler and purely moral interpretation was likewise supported by tradition, and I therefore adhere to my original translation.]