I'm looking to get a tattoo and have these word written in Pali. Can you help me with how to write this in Pali script?

It has been said that the reason the Buddha *did not answer* Vacchagotta was because the discussion was not about the doctrine & terminology of the Buddha, but rather about the illogical doctrine of Vacchagotta: > “Sir, why didn’t you answer Vacchagotta’s question?” > > “Ānanda, when Vacchagotta asked me whether the self exists absolutely, > if I had answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ I would have been > siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. When > Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely, if I > had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’ I would have > been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists. > > When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self exists absolutely, if I had > answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ would that have helped give > rise to the knowledge that all things are not-self?” > > “No, sir.” > > “When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely, > if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’, > Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, > thinking: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer exists.’” > > SN 44.10 It's also been said that the Buddha *did answer* the question about what happened to Pukkusāti *after* a cow killed him *even though* it was asked by ignorant monks who presumably were - just like Vacchagotta - not using the doctrine & terminology of the Buddha: > But while he was wandering in search of a bowl and robes, a stray cow > took his life. > > Then several mendicants went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one > side, and said to him, “Sir, the gentleman named Pukkusāti, who was > advised in brief by the Buddha, has passed away. **Where has he been > reborn in his next life?”** > > “Mendicants, Pukkusāti was astute. He practiced in line with the > teachings, and did not trouble me about the teachings. With the ending > of the five lower fetters, he’s been reborn spontaneously and will > become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.” > > MN 140 This seems inconsistent. Why is it that the Buddha *did not answer* Vacchagotta, but *did answer* the monks if both were premising their questions with ignorant understandings of the view of the self?

> Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall > be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be > possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a > conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be > non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be > neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is > a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming > all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage > at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and > does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might > be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he > die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should > he yearn? > > MN 140 Also has: > Then the venerable Pukkusāti, having delighted and rejoiced in the > Blessed One’s words, rose from his seat, and after paying homage to > the Blessed One, keeping him on his right, he departed in order to > search for a bowl and robes. Then, while the venerable Pukkusāti was > searching for a bowl and robes, **a stray cow killed him.** > > Then a number of bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, and after paying > homage to him, they sat down at one side and told him: “Venerable sir, > the clansman Pukkusāti, who was given brief instruction by the Blessed > One, has died. **What is his destination? What is his future course?**” > > “Bhikkhus, the clansman Pukkusāti was wise. He practised in accordance > with the Dhamma and did not trouble me in the interpretation of the > Dhamma. With the destruction of the five lower fetters, **the clansman > Pukkusāti has reappeared spontaneously in the Pure Abodes** and will > attain final Nibbāna there without ever returning from that world.” And we have this alternative translation of the relevant passage from Bhikkhu Sujato: > "But while he was wandering in search of a bowl and robes, **a stray cow > took his life.** > > Then several mendicants went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one > side, and said to him, “Sir, the gentleman named Pukkusāti, who was > advised in brief by the Buddha, has passed away. **Where has he been > reborn in his next life?”** > > “Mendicants, Pukkusāti was astute. He practiced in line with the > teachings, and did not trouble me about the teachings. With the ending > of the five lower fetters, **he’s been reborn spontaneously** and will > become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.” What did the Buddha mean in MN 140 about what happened to clansman Pukkusāti **after** a cow killed him?