I read the following on the internet by a Pali translator & independent monk some use as their first choice go to reference or 'refuge': > In any case, this makes it clear why the Sutta says the gandhabba must > be present, while the Veda says Viśvāvasu must depart.... This is not > something new, or something that has been left unaddressed by cultures > in the past. Anxiety about potency and paternity is a fundamental > component, perhaps the single most important distinguishing feature, > of the male psyche, and forms the foundation of misogyny. Patriarchal > institutions like marriage traditionally aimed to subjugate women, > yes, but they also tried to temper the worst of men. In freeing women > from patriarchal suppression, it is crucial to find ways to address > this deeply irrational male anxiety. > >[On the gandhabba and male anxiety](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on-the-gandhabba-and-male-anxiety/30928) In Early Buddhism: 1. Is marriage a patriarchal institution? 2. Is marriage the patriarchal subjugation of women? 3. Is the above utterance read on the internet an example of the wrong view in MN 117 that there is no mother & no father? Please quote Early Buddhist texts for & against the above propositions.

Is it possible to complete all paramitas without physically doing anything? If so, then how & where is it mentioned in tipitaka? In previous birth, while bowing down to dipankara, Gautama thought that if he wants he can destroy all dukkha just now and liberate.. how? Or these paramitas are for someone aspiring to be self enlightened only? If yes then sutta-refence.

There are two doctrines. Existence of self and existence of no self. Existence of self means eternalism. Existence of no self means nihilism. If self is eternal then there is no escape from suffering. If there is no self then there is no meaning of good deeds and bad deeds. There is a middle path. Depending upon ignorance , volitional formations arise,depending upon volitional formations ,consciousness arise , depending upon consciousness , name and form arise, depending upon name and form, six senses arise, depending on six senses , contact arises, depending upon contact , feelings arise, depending upon feelings , clinging arise, depending upon clinging, cravings arise, depending upon cravings,attachments arise, depending upon attachments , becoming arise , depending upon becoming , birth, ageing , death and whole mass of suffering arises. My question is: Why is it important to keep away from the doctrines of absolute self and absolute non-self?

Given that except Nirvana everything is impermanent, is it true that everything is unconditionally changeable? In other words whether, given something ,isn't it true that it will change no matter whether there is any reason behind it or not? Can we say all conditions are superfluous for a change to happen? Can we say change happens with or without conditions ?

I understand that the storm gods are the cause . I hope the sun never returns. How can I appease or offer those gods to have my wish?

To clear my and my friends doubts I ask the following question : Does the word Dukkha mean the same in every context of Buddha Dhamma? My opinion is that yes ,it is a general term for all kinds of stress. There is a range of stress , from subtle to deep,and kinds of stress, depending on nature of contact of six senses. Stress of heat , stress of too much cold , stress of sharp pinch , stress of bad smell , stress of loosing loved ones and so on..

And, finallyI am new here, 72-years-old, interested in Buddhism and have engaged in Buddhist practices since age 18-years. Over I the years, I have been to a handful of Zen retreats, where I met with masters and found benefit. These days, I favor Chan and though I like the idea of a master, I settle for reading sutras. Regarding rebirth, I have read that, quite possibly, Buddha was NOT into the notion of past lives or Karma across lives. That is, potentially, he worked from a view that the actuality of rebirth was not an important question. *(I am aware that some say, even if there were not rebirth, rebirth is a valuable notion because it has potential to increase right thought, right behavior, and such - much as do desires for eternal heaven and fears of eternal hell. The trouble I see with this notion is multifaceted. Because it is implicitly focused on 'this life' isn't it inherently contradictory? Also, if one lets go of anxious focus on personal rebirth, would not one immediately appreciate the benefit of right though, behavior now? If I am attached to the notion of making the future better does that not draw me back into Samsara in either manic or paranoid realms? And, finally is not the opposite also possible - "I have many lives to work this out, what's the rush? This, I believe is something the Chan Master Hakuin held as disdainful about a 'Pure Land' practice of delaying enlightenment with lick-and-promise chanting)* The notion of ‘more lives has’ palliative survival appeal. And apparently, the Vedic notions from which Buddhism and Hinduism grew did hold to notions of countless lives. Though, I am not an advocate of Marxism, and do not hold that ‘Religion’ can be reduced to “Opioid of the masses,” I have tended to see the psychological “flaw” of Hinduism was its use of Karma notions to control people. “You are untouchable because of your bad Karmic choices. Be good & patient for countless lives, and you will eventually live a lot of ‘nice’ lives as a Brahmin before finding liberation. Until then, it is best to accept that you are expendable.” In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishi makes a moral argument that, to protect the dharma, Arjuna, must “selflessly” destroy the nonbelievers. Please understand, I do not mean to besmirch Hinduism. Historically, just as with warfare, states with religions that promoted survival of the state fared better. Historically, Indian Hinduism, both tolerated and oppressed its Buddhist cousin. Later, the followers of the ‘One God’ & his prophet found their way to India. Appalled by the Godless Buddhists, they did a pretty good job of exterminating them. One traditional view I chose to favor goes that Buddha broke with the Vedic ideas, and, similar to the stoics, postulated it possible to achieve liberation in this life. I do have personal experiences that cause me to suspect there very well may be actual conscious beyond this life. However, until & unless I have more information, it remains an unanswerable, and so unimportant, question. Having said that, I have reasonable confidence that, the nonachievement nurturing buddha nature has afforded me in this life is of immeasurable value in both constructions. Am I missing something?

The third mark of existence states *sabbe dhamma anatta* - all phenomena is not self. Despite that, the following sutta states that there is a self-doer (*attakārī*). Also, this implies free will. How is it that the existence of the self-doer (and free will) does not conflict with the third mark of existence? > “So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring > beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, > this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a > doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving > forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no > self-doer, there is no other-doer’?” > AN 6.38 (translated by K. Nizamis) > “Brahmin, if there is this element of approaching, brahmin, then it is > evident then that beings are approaching: this is what beings do > themselves [self-agency], this is what is done by others > [other-agency].” “Yes, sir.” > > “Brahmin, I do not hold such a doctrine, > such a view [that there is no action of one’s own, that there is no > action by others]. For, I have neither seen nor heard of a situation > where one could oneself step forward or one could oneself step back, > and yet say, ‘There is no action of one’s own, there is no action by > others.’” > AN 6.38 (translated by Piya Tan) > “Since there is an element of energy, and sentient beings who have > energy are found, sentient beings act of their own volition or that of > another. > > Brahmin, may I never see or hear of anyone holding such a doctrine or > view! How on earth can someone who comes and goes on his own say that > one does not act of one’s own volition, nor does one act of another’s > volition?” > AN 6.38 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

I came across this explanation by Buddha, from the [Dana Mahapphala Sutta](https://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2.3-Dana-Mahapphala-S-a7.49-piya.pdf) . > THE BEST WAY TO GIVE. Or, instead of thinking, ‘When this gift of mine is given, it calms my mind. Satisfaction and joy arise,’ he makes a gift, thinking, ‘**This is an adornment for the mind, a support for the mind**.’ I couldn't understand the statement. How does one do this? What should be the state of mind when gifting? When does one start to give gift? Does one have to wait till one's moral conduct is good and has insight?

Inspired from another question, I went looking for translations from the pali on suttacentral where pali experts have used the english word 'real.' SN 22.85 as translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi

“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death’?”

However, Bikkhu Sujato translates SN 22.85

“In that case, Reverend Yamaka, since you don’t actually find the Realized One in the present life, is it appropriate to declare: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant who has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.’?”

While the original pali of SN 22.85 has:

“Ettha ca te, āvuso yamaka, diṭṭheva dhamme saccato thetato tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne, kallaṁ nu te taṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ: Variant: thetato → tathato (sya-all, km) | tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne → tathāgato anupalabbhiyamāno (sya-all, pts1ed); tathāgate anupalabbhamāne (?)‘tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi, yathā khīṇāsavo bhikkhu kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṁ maraṇā’”ti?

I think I've isolated the pali phrase in question as saccato thetato which I think breaks down like this: Saccato (सत्यतः in sanskrit): This term conveys the idea of "truth" or "reality." In a philosophical context, it's used to describe something as genuine, actual, or true. In the passage provided, "saccato" is used to suggest that one does not apprehend or perceive the Tathagata (Buddha) as "true" or "real" in the present life as Yamaka perceived. Thetato (स्थितिः in sanskrit): This term refers to "establishment" or "existence." It is used to indicate that something is established or exists in a certain way. In the passage, "thetato" is used to convey that the Tathagata (Buddha) is not established or perceived as existing in the present life in the way that Yamaka perceived. Since I'm neither a pali or sanskrit expert and I know there are some accomplished language folks on this forum:

1. Is saccato thetato the correct term under question in these two different english translations?
2. Which is the better translation or is there another translation that should be preferred over what Bikkhu Bodhi/Sujato suggest?
3. Are there other suttas that reference this term that could help with the translation and the meaning that is conveyed here?

Here is the search of the term on suttacentral. Thanks!

I have often heard teachings that it is better that one should not expect or desire anything in return for good deeds or dana performed. I presume it is because this leads to attachment. If one is not attached, does this mean that there are no good karmic consequences? I recalled that it was also mentioned the good karmic fruits are magnified as a result (of lack of attachments). How is this achieved? How should this be understood in line with [the teachings on karma?](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_237.html) Thank you. ---------- **Appendix A:** To clarify, the lack of attachment does not mean there is no intention. Undeniably, there will be some good intentions behind a charitable act like a wish for the well-being of or some relief for the recipient(s). What is meant by lack of attachment refers to the lack of desire or want for something in return e.g. praise, recognition or even good future karmic effects.

I believe Emptiness is a Dhamma. But here is an observation which arose: Emptiness is empty of meaning. My question is: Is Emptiness empty of meaning?

It can be understood that the self is not some real permanent thing, but I wish to know whether we can find a real *temporary* self? We can define a temporary self, which lasts for some small duration, and at a certain location. For example, we can identify this temporary self with the mind which is controlling the ideas I am presenting here as a question. Is this definition of a temporary self in some sense real?

Sabbe sanskharas Anicca. But is there any tendency or effort to keep sanskharas as it is for as long as possible? I personally suspect yes because there is a craving to keep the narrative alive.

The Four Great Elements quite literally translate to Earth, Wind (Air), Fire, Water. It is often taught that these are really descriptions of first person experience, and the monikers are just analogies. These first person experiences are something like: 1. Earth - the felt sense of solidity 2. Water - the felt sense of "squishiness" or liquidity 3. Air - the felt sense of light motion in the body, and also wind on the skin, and sensations from breathing 4. Fire - the felt sense of temperature Is there any evidence in the Sutta Pitaka that this teaching is accurate? In other words, what Suttas seem to imply that when these terms were used, the above interpretation is what was had in mind. In contrast to the "first person experience" interpretation, one might just understand the appearance of these terms in the Sutta Pitaka as referring to material objects and reflecting the understanding of chemistry at the time.

I'm specifically remembering a sutra where the Buddha turned away some youngsters because he said they weren't ready, or didn't have the proper attitude. I may be remembering completely incorrectly and getting this confused with something else, but it's in my memory nonetheless and wonder if it's at all accurate. Thanks!

Looking at [tipitaka.org/romn](https://tipitaka.org/romn/) , I have a few questions about the XML markup used for it, so I can better understand the significance of each thing. ### The ’’ symbol? Take this paragraph as one reference: > 25. Atha kho sudinno kalandaputto aciravuṭṭhitāya parisāya yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā bhagavantaṃ abhivādetvā ekamantaṃ nisīdi. Ekamantaṃ nisinno kho sudinno kalandaputto bhagavantaṃ etadavoca – ‘‘yathā yathāhaṃ, bhante, bhagavatā dhammaṃ desitaṃ ājānāmi , nayidaṃ sukaraṃ agāraṃ ajjhāvasatā ekantaparipuṇṇaṃ ekantaparisuddhaṃ saṅkhalikhitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ carituṃ; icchāmahaṃ, bhante, kesamassuṃ ohāretvā kāsāyāni vatthāni acchādetvā agārasmā anagāriyaṃ pabbajituṃ. Pabbājetu maṃ bhagavā’’ti. ‘‘Anuññātosi pana tvaṃ, suddinna, mātāpitūhi agārasmā anagāriyaṃ pabbajjāyā’’ti? ‘‘Na kho ahaṃ, bhante, anuññāto mātāpitūhi agārasmā anagāriyaṃ pabbajjāyā’’ti. ‘‘Na kho, sudinna, tathāgatā ananuññātaṃ mātāpitūhi puttaṃ pabbājentī’’ti. ‘‘Sohaṃ, bhante, tathā karissāmi yathā maṃ mātāpitaro anujānissanti agārasmā anagāriyaṃ pabbajjāyā’’ti. What do the double special single quote characters ’’ mean? They appear to come at the beginning of a sentence, or two characters before the end of the sentence, but maybe that is just in this context. Yeah they also appear in other places too: > Dutiyampi kho sudinnassa kalandaputtassa mātāpitaro sudinnaṃ kalandaputtaṃ etadavocuṃ – ‘‘tvaṃ khosi, tāta sudinna, amhākaṃ ekaputtako piyo manāpo sukhedhito sukhaparihato. Na tvaṃ, tāta sudinna, kiñci dukkhassa jānāsi. Maraṇenapi mayaṃ te akāmakā vinā bhavissāma, kiṃ pana mayaṃ taṃ jīvantaṃ anujānissāma agārasmā anagāriyaṃ pabbajjāyā’’ti! Tatiyampi kho sudinno kalandaputto mātāpitaro etadavoca – ‘‘ammatātā , yathā yathāhaṃ bhagavatā dhammaṃ desitaṃ ājānāmi, nayidaṃ sukaraṃ agāraṃ ajjhāvasatā ekantaparipuṇṇaṃ ekantaparisuddhaṃ saṅkhalikhitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ carituṃ; icchāmahaṃ kesamassuṃ ohāretvā kāsāyāni vatthāni acchādetvā agārasmā anagāriyaṃ pabbajituṃ . Anujānātha maṃ agārasmā anagāriyaṃ pabbajjāyā’’ti. ### The ... You see that a lot, does it mean something was missing or was that part of the original somehow? What does it mean? > Bhikkhupaccatthikā tiracchānagatubhatobyañjanakaṃ jāgarantaṃ… suttaṃ… mattaṃ… ummattaṃ… pamattaṃ… mataṃ akkhāyitaṃ… mataṃ yebhuyyena akkhāyitaṃ…pe… āpatti pārājikassa. Mataṃ yebhuyyena khāyitaṃ bhikkhussa santike ānetvā vaccamaggena… passāvamaggena… mukhena aṅgajātaṃ abhinisīdenti, santhatassa asanthatassa, asanthatassa santhatassa, santhatassa santhatassa, asanthatassa asanthatassa. So ce pavesanaṃ sādiyati, paviṭṭhaṃ sādiyati, ṭhitaṃ sādiyati , uddharaṇaṃ sādiyati, āpatti thullaccayassa…pe… na sādiyati, anāpatti. ### The multiple titles In one of the pages, the start of the XML looks like this: <p rend="chapter">Dhammapaccanīye dukapaṭṭhānaṃ</p> <p rend="title">1. Hetudukaṃ</p> <p rend="title">1-7. Paṭiccavārādi</p> <p rend="subhead">Paccayacatukkaṃ</p> <p rend="subhead">Hetupaccayo</p> What does it mean that there are 2 title and also 2 subhead? That is 4 titles? Sometimes you see 3 title and no subhead, or 2-4 subhead and no title. Does it have significance or no? ### The paragraph numbers Sometimes a page starts with 1, other times it starts with a later number, such as this: <p rend="chapter">1. Pārājikakaṇḍaṃ</p> <p rend="title">1. Paṭhamapārājikaṃ</p> <p rend="subhead">Sudinnabhāṇavāravaṇṇanā</p> <p rend="bodytext" n="24">24. Ito paraṃ tena kho pana samayena vesāliyā avidūretiādi yebhuyyena uttānatthaṃ. Tasmā anupadavaṇṇanaṃ pahāya yattha yattha vattabbaṃ atthi, taṃ tadeva vaṇṇayissāma. Kalandagāmoti kalandakā vuccanti kāḷakā, tesaṃ vasena laddhanāmo gāmo. Kalandaputtoti gāmavasena laddhanāmassa rājasammatassa cattālīsakoṭivibhavassa kalandaseṭṭhino putto. Yasmā pana tasmiṃ gāme a&#241;&#241;epi kalandanāmakā manussā atthi, tasmā kalandaputtoti vatvā puna seṭṭhiputtoti vuttaṃ. Sambahulehīti bahukehi. Sahāyakehīti sukhadukkhāni saha āyanti upagacchantīti sahāyā, sahāyā eva sahāyakā, tehi sahāyakehi. Saddhinti ekato. Kenacideva karaṇīyenāti kenacideva bhaṇḍappayojanauddhārasāraṇādinā kiccena; kattikanakkhattakīḷākiccenātipi vadanti. Bhagavā hi kattikajuṇhapakkhe vesāliṃ sampāpuṇi. Kattikanakkhattakīḷā cettha uḷārā hoti. Tadatthaṃ gatoti veditabbo.</p> <p rend="bodytext">Addasa khoti kathaṃ addasa? So kira nagarato bhuttapātarāsaṃ suddhuttarāsaṅgaṃ mālāgandhavilepanahatthaṃ buddhadassanatthaṃ dhammasavanattha&#241;ca nikkhamantaṃ mahājanaṃ disvā ‘‘kva gacchathā’’ti pucchi. ‘‘Buddhadassanatthaṃ dhammasavanattha&#241;cā’’ti. Tena hi ‘‘ahampi gacchāmī’’ti gantvā catubbidhāya parisāya parivutaṃ brahmassarena dhammaṃ desentaṃ bhagavantaṃ addasa. Tena vuttaṃ – ‘‘addasa kho…pe… desenta’’nti. Disvānassāti disvāna assa. Etadahosīti pubbe katapu&#241;&#241;atāya codiyamānassa bhabbakulaputtassa etaṃ ahosi. Kiṃ ahosi? Yaṃnūnāhampi dhammaṃ suṇeyyanti . Tattha yannūnāti parivitakkadassanametaṃ. Evaṃ kirassa parivitakko uppanno ‘‘yamayaṃ parisā ekaggacittā dhammaṃ suṇāti, aho vatāhampi taṃ suṇeyya’’nti.</p> What does that paragraph number mean, is it used elsewhere, why is it important? ### The hidden `` tags? In the XML, you see ` and other Paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

<p rend="bodytext">Tatridaṃ samantapāsādikāya samantapāsādikattasmiṃ –</p> <p rend="gatha1">Ācariyaparamparato, nidānavatthuppabhedadīpanato;</p> <p rend="gathalast">Parasamayavivajjanato, sakasamayavisuddhito ceva.</p> <p rend="gatha1">Bya&#241;janaparisodhanato, padatthato pāḷiyojanakkamato;</p> <p rend="gathalast">Sikkhāpadanicchayato, vibhaṅganayabhedadassanato.</p> <p rend="gatha1">Sampassataṃ na dissati, ki&#241;ci apāsādikaṃ yato ettha;</p> <p rend="gathalast">Vi&#241;&#241;ūnamayaṃ tasmā, samantapāsādikātveva.</p> <p rend="gatha1">Saṃvaṇṇanā pavattā, vinayassa vineyyadamanakusalena;</p> <p rend="gathalast">Vuttassa lokanāthena, lokamanukampamānenāti.</p> <p rend="centre">Paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.</p> Sometimes the gatha tags are listed in order, with gathalast at the end, other times they are gatha1-gatha4-gatha3-gatha2-gathalast or 4-3-2-1-last or other sequences. What does that mean? They appear to be verses at the UI level, but why are the encoded this way (and sometimes out of order)?

I asked https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49491/how-to-break-pali-compound-words in which I tried to also ask the question I am asking here, but the answers focused mostly on how to break down Pali words (which I also find important). But for this question, I am wondering how ancient people perhaps conceptualized, read, spoke, or otherwise dealt with these large words? Were they said as a single utterance with a single linguistic stress syllable? Or were they considered like english "multi-word terms", and we just write them as a single word for some reason in modern romanization of Pali? Basically how were these large words or terms dealt with in the original context? I personally find the long words unwieldy and hard to pronounce because there is just so much, so wondering how the ancients did it, or how they thought of them.

Looking at the [Pali Tripitaka](http://tipitaka.online-dhamma.net/canon/vinaya/p%C4%81r%C4%81jika/vera%C3%B1jaka%E1%B9%87%E1%B8%8Da%E1%B9%83) , many of the words are really long: - Ucchedavādo - anuppādadhammā - evaṃsukhadukkhappaṭisaṃvedī - micchādiṭṭhikammasamādānā - sambodhiparāyaṇo’’ti (btw, what does that ’’ mean, I see it a lot?) Can you break these words down to smaller ones automatically/algorithmically somehow? Or must you understand the meaning of the word's parts, and only then could you attempt it (and even then it is not recommended). How do you emphasize the main part of the word like you do in english "REG-yu-lear-lee" (regularly)? How do you speak or read such long words, is it normal in Pali? I know they didn't use the Latin alphabet, but not sure how they thought of words even. Just looking for some perspective / advice on how to handle them.

My understanding is that the Buddha took many teachings and concepts already existing in his society and renewed them when needed, giving them a meaning in accord with his understanding. Is it correct? I guess he introduced new teachings and concepts as well. My question is: which one were already existing and which one are introduced by the Buddha? - 4 noble truths - 8 fold noble path - 5 khandha - 6 sense bases, 6 sense objects and 6 consciousnesses - 4 brahmavihārā - 4 right efforts - 4 jhāna - 5 precepts - 3 jewels - 4 gratitudes (parents, teachers, friends, all beings) - 4 kinds of nutriments - 7 factors of awakening - 6 paramitas - ānāpānassati - satipaṭṭhāna - nibbāna - saṃsāra - interdependent co-arising - anattā, dukkhā and anicca - sila, samadhi and prajna - rebirth and previous lives Please add to this list if something important is missing. In gratitude