Okay to start here is a Buddha quote found in books and social websites, etc.  Yet, I can not find where this quote came from in the Pali Canon or from any other source traditionally considered to be a buddhist source.

Why am I bringing this up?  Because ,

1) I feel that the spread of misinformation is bad enough as it is.
2) People should hold themselves accountable for what they say and who they represent.

Anyway, my apologies if this quote can actually be shown to have come from some original Buddha Source, i.e. the Pali Canon, Chinese Agamas, etc.

Here is the quote in question, and some links below to where I found the passage, it has spread everywhere.
To add, It is not the underlying message involved that I am questioning and investigating, but the attributing something in the way that the Buddha said something in particular.  Especially if this is not the case.

Found here, and here, and here, on websites and in books.  Which leads me to believe that I am wrong, and the above quote is in the Pali Canon somewhere.

https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+agami&rlz=1CAHPZY_enUS596US596&oq=chinese+agami&aqs=chrome..69i57.3295j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=%E2%80%9CThe+Buddha+once+asked+a+student%2C+%E2%80%9CIf+a+person+is+struck+by+an+arrow%2C+is+it+painful%3F%E2%80%9D+The+student+replied%2C+%E2%80%9CIt+is.%22The+Buddha+then+asked%2C+%22If+the+person+is+struck+by+a+second+arrow%2C+is+that+even+more+painful%3F%E2%80%9D+The+student+replied+again%2C+%E2%80%9CIt+is.%E2%80%9D+The+Buddha+then+explained%2C+%E2%80%9CIn+life%2C+we+cannot+control+the+first+arrow.+However%2C+the+second+arrow+is+our+reaction+to+the+first.+The+second+arrow+is+optional.%E2%80%9D



Quote is found in these books specifically, 

Gil Fronsdal, The Issue at Hand


Tara Brach True Refuge

There was actually even another book in print that used the quote, but I can not find it right now.


Anyway, not saying this is or is not what the Buddha said, but...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.023.than.html


So, this may be something I too should be aware of, I have a way of reframing things in my mind so that I better understand them, but this is not to say that the ideas are originally me or mine, haha, (a little Anatta joke, ahem).

Psi

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html

SN 36.6  

Sallatha Sutta: The Dart


"An untaught worldling, O monks, experiences pleasant feelings, he experiences painful feelings and he experiences neutral feelings. A well-taught noble disciple likewise experiences pleasant, painful and neutral feelings. Now what is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists herein between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling?"

When an untaught worldling is touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. He thus experiences two kinds of feelings, a bodily and a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart and, following the first piercing, he is hit by a second dart. So that person will experience feelings caused by two darts. It is similar with an untaught worldling: when touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. So he experiences two kinds of feeling: a bodily and a mental feeling."

Having been touched by that painful feeling, he resists (and resents) it. Then in him who so resists (and resents) that painful feeling, an underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he then proceeds to enjoy sensual happiness. And why does he do so? An untaught worldling, O monks, does not know of any other escape from painful feelings except the enjoyment of sensual happiness. Then in him who enjoys sensual happiness, an underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He does not know, according to facts, the arising and ending of these feelings, nor the gratification, the danger and the escape, connected with these feelings. In him who lacks that knowledge, an underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called an untaught worldling who is fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is fettered by suffering, this I declare."

But in the case of a well-taught noble disciple, O monks, when he is touched by a painful feeling, he will not worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. It is one kind of feeling he experiences, a bodily one, but not a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart, but was not hit by a second dart following the first one. So this person experiences feelings caused by a single dart only. It is similar with a well-taught noble disciple: when touched by a painful feeling, he will no worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. He experiences one single feeling, a bodily one."

Having been touched by that painful feeling, he does not resist (and resent) it. Hence, in him no underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he does not proceed to enjoy sensual happiness. And why not? As a well-taught noble disciple he knows of an escape from painful feelings other than by enjoying sensual happiness. Then in him who does not proceed to enjoy sensual happiness, no underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He knows, according to facts, the arising and ending of those feelings, and the gratification, the danger and the escape connected with these feelings. In him who knows thus, no underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one who is not fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called a well-taught noble disciple who is not fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is not fettered to suffering, this I declare."

This, O monks, is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling.

Or: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=first+arrow+second+arrow+pali+canon

:)

More, agghh!!!  Haha ,  It seems there are more and more arrows.Sharon Salzberg link.   As the Buddha said, “If you truly loved yourself, you would never harm another.”


http://www.originmagazine.com/2013/08/04/a-conversation-with-meditation-teacher-and-co-founder-of-insight-meditation-society-sharon-salzberg/



http://fakebuddhaquotes.com/if-you-truly-loved-yourself-you-could-never-hurt-another/

Psi

My favorite arrow quote:

Persian: A thousand nations of the Persian empire will descend upon you. Our arrows will blot out the sun!

Stelios: Then we will fight in the shade.

Exactly, the Quote is NOT there!!!  That is the point.

Psi

Ah, okay. But it's a close enough paraphrase for my tastes. (am not a textual scholar, so other people's mileage may vary

Yes, yes, I agree, mostly.  As I said earlier, it is not so much the message being conveyed, but the actual claim that it is a quote from the Buddha, just does not seem right, somehow.  Not that I am going to let it bother me, there are definitely worse things in the world to contend with.


As Confucious say, 

Time flies like arrow. Fruit flies like bananas.

But, I am pretty sure Confucious did not actually say that.  

Psi

P.S.  So, I would suggest that if someone is paraphrasing or making up their own quote, they should either state they are paraphrasing, or put their own name to the quote..

Like this, 

This is a paraphrase , so please bear that in mind, this is not what the Buddha actually said, but an interpretation.Or it could be worded like this, if this is the case, 


Since the Buddha never said what was written above anyway, the second quote box would be closer to the truth, and also my other point is that, the quote does not explain very well why the second arrow is optional.  Because, as the Buddha explains, the second arrow is not option in an untrained mind.  The untrained mind will either try to ignore the fact of the arrow, be averse to the reality of the arrow, or seek relief through the happiness of sensual pleasures to escape from the arrow. As the Buddha stated, So, I would say that the second dart is not just a casual option as stated in the misquoting of Buddha.  It seems, that it may be that the teachers are pointing to escape through the pleasant feelings, as does a worldling. 

Like this, which is incorrect, from what I can tell.  
But, as with the above quote, which I hope is known to be an obvious parody, I do not think the quote in the box can be attributed to the Buddha , either.

And, if the above quote actually shows up as an actual teaching of the Buddha some many decades hence, then I declare little hope, for then the only hope will be for Stand Up Philosophers to save us.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4VD8uvgec


Psi

Yeah, my feelings too, it was IMO a reasonably accurate  paraphrase and not exactly sticking out much to me as far as misquotes of scripture. We've got people on here all the time who have not read the pali canon but yet think they know what is in it and assume that what is in it is what they already believe.  Like that Buddha said there is no self, when really he only said not to believe in self and not to believe in so self either.  He said not to believe in either, but people on here are all the time speaking as if it is Buddha's words that there is no self.  How long was I on here getting the impression that belief in no self was required until I finally read in pali canon that Buddha said to cling to NO views, and that includes the no self belief.  Yet that MUCH more pervasive and direct misquote/assumption is left unchallenged. Why?  Probably because a lot here like to believe in no self.  They like that misquote better so are much less likely to challenge or even consider challenging it.  
-Eva 

Ok, so in the spirit of the original thread title (hopefully), I put forth this one:  If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?  Often this is quoted as being a zen koan, but actually it started with philosopher George Berkeley and later was coopted by physicists to make a point about the definition of sound and hearing and shock waves.  But since it sound kind of koanlike, many assume it to be zen derived and it gets bandied about as such.  (some might argue that anything can be a koan if it helps you on the path so I am emphasizing assumptions about origin so as not to open that can of worms) 

Ok, and also for a less lighted hearted one.  Many think that pali canon was written by Gautama Buddha, but really the stories were carried in oral tradition only for generations of some hundreds of years, then according to scholars, many diff versions became present in written form with various sects arguing over which was correct.  Eventually one version became predominant.  That version, the one we have now, appears to have gotten it's current form approx 1,000 years after Gautama died.  There is ample evidence that many alterations happened over that 1000 years of time, things omitted, things added, etc, according the desires and beliefs of the people of each time.  So it is very debatable that every single thing in the pali canon was the true words of Buddha (unfortunately). 
-Eva

Exactly, and I think this may be a modern example of the distortion of an original teaching. Small errors adding up over time.  So, my orignal point is not the quote itself, but the starting of it by saying, "The Buddha said"  which in this case is not even backed up by the original sources that we do have in the present time, however many errors they may contain.

In the quote it starts out, "The Buddha onced asked a student" and there is nothing anywhere of the sort in the Sallatha Sutta like that.  I am not even sure if the Teacher Student relationship is even an accurate portrayal of the Buddha, that starts to reek of guru relationships.  I think the Buddha passed along Wisdom, as a friend would speak to a friend, out of Wisdom and Compassion.  And not as a Teacher to a Student.  But, then again, I could be wrong.  Won't be the first time, lol...

And, I want to add, I am not trying to ruffle anybody's feathers or anything, I am probably only pointing out my own naivete in the way the publishing world works and the lack of commonality in ethics and whatnot.  Again, not that I am passing judgement or criticism, just trying to discuss facts as they present themselves.

But, one apology, sometimes I am sarcastic , My mind comes up with weird stuff, Like Mindfulness Teachers passing out Care Bears and telling stories about the Buddha's Teachings.  

So here is another Modern Mindfulness Cultural Meme,

Go to a Meditation Center, sit with a bunch of other people, yoga style, and listen to a nice relaxing guided meditation, and leave your weekly Dana fee at the door before you leave, (check please)

What the Buddha said, (as far as we know, that is)

For jhana:

But, of course in the above case, there is no money trail , only jhana..
.
Also , I would add, in the modern scenario, a closed room, secluded from noise and distractions would have to do, in most cases.
In any case I would imagine it being very difficult to train in the abandonment of the Hindrances and incling the mind towards Samma Samadhi in the midst of a bunch of scuffling, sniffling, restless people in some rented community center room.

Anyway, what I am really saying is Blah, Blah, Blah Blah 

Psi

Okay, one last post, as I am not communicating very clearly, and am finding for myself where I may be misinterpreted.

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Guided Meditations and Weekly gatherings for people to learn Mindfulness or relaxation techniques in Community Centers.

What I am trying to point out as being possibly incorrect is that the above gatherings of Mindfulness and Meditation and way of teaching is not the way the Buddha actually taught, as far as I can tell.

So, again, I have no problem with people teaching anything, people can do what they want.  But, I would find some stickiness with someone teaching something and attiributing it to the Buddha and saying that it was his way of teaching, when it is not true, and to be the case.

I do not see where the Buddha taught group or guided meditations, or recommended group or guided meditations.  So, I am just pointing to this phenomenon as another possible example of cultural memes vs. actual teachings.

And , again, if it is not attributed to the Buddha, then it is something else anyway, and again, then there is no problem, Meditation and Methods have been around for far longer, and more methods will probably evolve over time.

Psi  okay, I will ssshhhh.....  

edit, boldfaced the main point of contention

Yeah probably was a good idea to put this last bit in.  ;-P  IME, I have not seen any local guided meditations trying to get near any insinations of Buddhist thought or origin, perhaps in part to avoid an insuations of religion since there are likely going to be people that are CHristians and other religions there.  In fact, it's become common to call them 'guided visualizations' perhaps to make it sound more nondominational.  Nor have I seen any that discussed or dealt in any way with jhana.  (of course I never heard a peep about that kind of stuff at the rinzai zen temple I went to either)  Seems like primary emphasis is on relaxation and dealing with old wounds and I think they are great for that and it gives people a taste of looking inside their mind, something many probably have little experience with (I was one of those).  I would suspect there are some people who do abuse it and make more of it than it is though, just like any tool, sometimes it will probably get abused. 

But back to the topic, something to consider, if there is not strong historical text support for a concept, is it still Buddhism?  And should we be sure there is strong historical text support for something before insinuating it as Buddhism?

Hmmm.....  Good questions.  Exactly what is Buddhism?  It seems to mean different things to different people.  For me, it is a method of mental training, or cultivation.  And, I must admit, most of the rest that sounds like supernatural speculation, I kind of ignore.  Ignore, yet still admit that , "All things are possible."  This mind has experienced some rather strange phenomenon,,,

Well, the whole historical support thing is kinda sketchy, as it is for alot of things.  With what I consider Buddhism, what is real Buddhism is what can be Investigated and found to be true and actually experienced.  So, maybe it is a little different at different times for different people.

But, explained another way , my contention is the hijacking of Buddhism.  In other words the glomming onto Buddhism, when it really is not Buddhism.  Then using the accumulated reputation of the Buddha for ones own means.  But, probably legal since copyrights do not apply to palm leaves and wicker baskets.  Well, if the quote was even on the Palm leaves to begin with, there would be at least a glimmer of validity....

So when somebody puts a The Buddha said, "Blah Blah", in a book, I would expect to find some kind of historical context, even if that historical context may have errors, it is just all we have to go on.  

But even so, there is enough there, in the Pali Canon,  to work out a valid and productive path that the mind can follow.

So, I will have to let the mind think upon your questions for a bit, for any deeper answers.

But , for now, making up Buddha quotes over 2500 years later seems kinda sketchy.  Maybe it was all just a brain error, memory works that way, maybe the originator quoters really thought the Buddha said those exact words.  Maybe they have a time machine tape recorder, or a professional channeler, or maybe they have a modern day Buddha at hand, Who knows??  

Narrator: There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.


Psi

[quote=Psi

]Say it like Fabio!!

I can't belive it's not Buddha!!             <-----------  Now that's funny!!  

quoted from website below, lists an ungodly amount of fake Buddha quotes, unbelievable!

http://fakebuddhaquotes.com/all-fake-buddha-quotes/