Some texts speak of 'compounded' phenomena etc. - What does it mean for something to be 'compounded' or 'uncompounded'? For the former, does it just mean 'things that are composed of other things, which themselves are composed of smaller things, ad infinitum? For the latter, something 'indivisible'? - If something is uncompounded, how can it exist as a 'thing'? - Why are some things compounded or not? What makes them that way

Are these two words synonymous? Is everything that exists, real? Is everything real, an existent? What is a proper relationship between the words "real" and "exists" in the context of Buddhist doctrine? What is a proper definition of "real" and of "exists" in the context of Buddhist doctrine? Are dreams real? Do they exist? Are illusions real? Do they exist? Are chairs real? Do they exist? Are persons real? Do they exist? Is the son of a barren woman real? Do they exist? Is there anything that is real, but does not exist? What do we *really* mean when we say something is real? Pun intended.

What is the precise meaning of the word "dukkha", often translated as "suffering" in Buddhism? Is it correct to say that Buddhism gives a method to get rid of **all** sufferings, including the most basic physical suffering (=illness/pain etc.)? So in that case even if some disease has no cure with our current medicine, Buddhism somehow has a way to free us from the pain of this disease? Please if possible provide a precise reference.

Thomas Cleary uses the term "enlightening being" extensively in his translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra . This term isn't defined in the glossary of that book, or in my copy of The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism . Is there a canonical definition of "enlightening being"? Edit: Thanks useful comments by @ChrisW and @KayCee, I see in Appendix 1 "bodhisattva or enlightening being". I'm finding it helpful to read this Appendix before returning to the Introduction.

It seems to me that there is a popular and strong belief that if you reach enlightenment, and thus have [four immeasurables](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara "Brahmavihara - Wikipedia"), you can help a person without making them feel extra suffering or fighting back. This can be illustrated by the sutta [Aṅgulimāla](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%E1%B9%85gulim%C4%81la "Aṅgulimāla - Wikipedia"). The Buddha can stop him easily and effortlessly. The premise here is that enlightenment = perfect knowledge, and/or four immeasurables = you and the others are truly the same, so that you can understand that person inside out. The equal sign = is more like implies that rather exactly means. However, realistically, I think this is impossible. There are situations that achieving enlightenment does not mean perfect knowledge. For example, you can reach enlightenment in a radioactive region. This is not loving-kindness yourself. Likewise, one can never claim to perfectly understand the inner state of the other person, especially without face-to-face conversation. What it seems to be true is that enlightenment = having no distortion, and/or four immeasurables = being able to vision a way to help the others getting out of their suffering. Perhaps this is just a matter of defining what enlightenment is. This is fine. But in this case, its necessary consequence is that no human can achieve this state (though can absolutely achieve [mindfulness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness "Mindfulness - Wikipedia") or practice eightfold path). Is this correct?