I'm referring to Mantras listed [here](https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/docs/support/world_religions/buddhism/practices.pdf) such as the **Shakyamuni Mantra**: > *Om Muni Muni Mahamuni Shakyamuniye Svaha* In Buddhist practice throughout the world, what is the predominant practice: are those mantras translated into the local language or do adherents recite them in the original Sanskrit? If one can choose, is there any spiritual benefit from reciting them in Sanskrit during meditation?

Since Buddhism is is a western term combining Buddha with the common "-ism" suffix, I wonder whether there is/are eastern self-designations of Buddhism as a religion. Of course there are self-designations of various schools (Theravāda, Zen, ...), Dhamma/Dharma and Sangha refer to teaching and community, but is there some overarching terminology in asia?

I seem to have read that the "original" or "oldest" Tripitaka was written in Pali, but at the same time the Sanskrit language is much older than Pali. How do Sanskrit and Pali relate in terms of Buddhism? I would like to collect as many Buddhist terms and their meanings in one of these two languages but not sure which would provide the deepest, most concise, clear, and complete terminology for the Buddhist cosmology and theories of mind and such. Sanskrit seems like it has a richer more established etymological system so it might be easier to understand concepts that way, but perhaps Pali is closer to the original meaning or something? Which language would be better for a beginner or advanced student of Buddhism?

It seems a significant and overlooked contribution of the Buddha, his redefining of various terms of his day into definitions more conducive to the ending of greed, ill-will and delusion/ignorance. What are (all) these redefined terms (if not listed elsewhere)?

When people speaking different languages came from other lands to meditate, did that ever necessitate speaking the language in which they chanted? Has there ever been a situation where circumstances necessitated conversation in Pali or Sanskrit?

A friend asked this mind-bending question on social media: > when you’re talking to yourself in your head (or out loud) do you refer to yourself as we, I, you, or they/she/he/other pronoun? This got me thinking that the difference between addressing myself as "I" and "you" seems trivial but really has some implications when it comes to ego, self, non-self and letting go. So I'm wondering if anyone has any opinions on whether the Dhamma implies we should "talk to ourselves" in certain ways? E.g. Should I tell myself > I forgive that person, I will follow the eight-fold path, I will meditate for 20 minutes or > You forgive that person, you will follow the eight-fold path, you will meditate for 20 minutes Alternately, do you think we should really try to use the third-person for addressing ourselves? I know that some Buddhists like to say things like "the body" rather than "your body" or "my body", but it seems like saying "Jer will meditate for 20 minutes" is too weird, but if that's the answer you think is right I'm interested in your thinking too :) --- *Here's an example answer that shows what I am asking with this question, but I don't know if it's very wise or not, so obviously still looking for perspectives of others.* When I address myself in the first person, I implicitly emphasize my identity, and stay wrapped up in subjectivity. When I address myself in the second person, I confess that my consciousness is separate from my identity, I gain a more objective position in relation to my thoughts, feelings and experiences.

I have read at various places that Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason. ONLY meditation is the way. Why is that so? thanks in advance.

Based on the quote below, it seemed that the Buddha did not allow his teachings to be translated to the royal or priestly language of Sanskrit, that was the liturgical language of Brahmanism, the language of classical literature and the language used by the royal court. The common people at the time did not speak Sanskrit in their daily conversations. They spoke various dialects of Prakrit. The Buddha wanted his teachings to be transmitted in the dialects of the common people. It appears that Pali, although not a genuinely spoken language of the past, seems to be a mix of various Prakrit dialects from Buddha's time, that underwent partial Sanskritization. It also makes sense to me that the Pali Canon was transmitted mostly by oral tradition and was written down only late in its history compared to Mahayana texts because Sanskrit was the main written language for a long time in northern India. This is similar to the role of Latin in European history. I also guess that the Chinese scholar monks who visited India, took with them the Sanskrit Mahayana texts back to China, instead of the Pali Canon, partly because the Sanskrit texts were committed to writing much earlier, while the Pali Canon was still transmitted mostly orally at the time. Question: If the Buddha did not want his teachings to be taught in Sanskrit, why and how did the Indian Mahayana texts (agamas, sutras, vinaya etc.) end up being in Sanskrit? According to the (Theravada) Vinaya from Cullavagga, fifth Khandaka, chapter 33 : > And so sitting those Bhikkhus spake to the Blessed One thus: > > 'At the present time, Lord, Bhikkhus, differing in name, differing in > lineage, differing in birth, differing in family, have gone forth > (from the world). These corrupt the word of the Buddhas by (repeating > it in) their own dialect. Let us, Lord, put the word of the Buddhas > into (Sanskrit) verse.' > > 'How can you, O foolish ones, speak thus, saying, "Let us, Lord, put > the word of the Buddhas into verse?" This will not conduce, O foolish > ones, either to the conversion of the unconverted, or to the increase > of the converted; but rather to those who have not been converted > being not converted, and to the turning back of those who have been > converted.' > > And when the Blessed One had rebuked those Bhikkhus, and had delivered > a religious discourse, he addressed the Bhikkhus, and said: > > **'You are not, O Bhikkhus, to put the word of the Buddhas into > (Sanskrit) verse. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata. I > allow you, O Bhikkhus, to learn the word of the Buddhas each in his > own dialect.'**

What is the difference between **view** (as in "right view" in the Noble Eightfold Path) and **perception** (as in the 3rd of the five Skandha's)? Grateful for help! Peace, Tord

In a lot of discussions here in B.S.E, the topic of the exact meaning of some terms keeps recurring, and nobody seems to have the last word. Words such as 'upapajjati', 'paccājāyati', 'abhinibbatti' are often translated as "rebirth", but for some, that doesn't seem to be the case. Or other terms as 'deva' or 'abhiñña' are understood as "god" and "psychic powers", respectively. Or even outside of Buddhist culture we find some terms such as 'prana', 'chakra', 'messiah', and so on. How can we now the way people contemporary to the origin of such words understood those terms? It is possible that they used those words to describe phenomena that we currently know by other more scientific terms? For instance, in this entry (https://torvol.wordpress.com/2017/11/27/the-chakra-system-is-an-analogy-to-get-your-shit-together-not-spiritual-woo-woo/) , this blogger assures that 'chakras' were the way used to talk about the regulation of emotions. I hope you can understand my point. Have a nice day, and thanks for your time!

Suppose I am really serious about following the path of Vajrayana Buddhism o the point of studying texts in their original and I speak only English. I assume that the best language to learn would be Tibetan. Is this correct? What other languages would be relevant for this? For example, if you would like to study the various forms and schools of Christian thought, I would recommend learning mostly Greek, Latin and Hebrew, but also some Aramaic, Russian and German, in their ancient versions. If, instead of Vajrayana, I wanted to follow the path of Mahayana, I would assume some kind of ancient Mandarin was the way to go. I assume that this is analogous for Theravada and Pali. For each school of Buddhism, what would be the best languages to learn in order to be able to study the bulk of the canon associated to that school in its original and why?

**What did the Buddha say about wholesome types of motivation?** Is there a difference in the Pali language between "intention" (as in Right Intention) and "motivation"? From what I understand Right Intention is renunciation, good-will and harmlessness. I can understand how good-will and maybe renunciation can be a sort of motivation, but harmlessness seems to be more passive and therefore maybe not a motivation in the same way **Basically what I'm looking for are the things that motivate us (as in "drives us") to do things, which are considered wholesome in Buddhism** (Maybe there is also a connection to Right Effort here) Grateful for help with understanding this better!

Two spelling/usage questions about two Sanskrit words common in Buddhism. First, what is the difference between Madhyamaka (ending in "aka") and Madhyamika (ending in "ika"). I have seen that the former is the doctrine or school while the latter is an adherent of that school. Is that correct? Second, are either or both properly rendered in the Latin alphabet with or without the straight bar diacritical over the initial a: Madhyamaka or Mādhyamaka; Madhyamika or Mādhyamika. I have seen it both ways in numerous contexts.

In Islamic quran, we Muslims are asked to know people from other nations and following other religions, we are recommended to learn their languages. Allah said: "O Mankind, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes that you may know one another." Is there any recommendations in the Buddhism that tells the same? especially for languages learning?

Anyone know of any methods of learning languages within a Buddhist setting? Like learning to read and listen to Dhamma talks and suttas or learning conversation with dialogues of a Buddhist nature. I mean, for example, languages like Thai, Tibetan, Chinese, Burmese, Vietnamese, Sinhalese, English, Spanish and German. Actually, I mean any language that could be in a Buddhist setting. Maybe a method of learning both a language and beginning Buddhism , meditation at the same time. Maybe Pali and/or Sanskrit too, that would be teaching three birds with one teaching.

The English word ‘reality’ (from the Latin res, "matter” or “thing") is very misleading and says the opposite of what “reality” actually is. The Latin 'res' is a very deceptive word, it makes you think about something static, finite. It’s etymologically very interesting to look at reality from a Norwegian perspective. The Norwegian words are more dynamic and the reason might be that Norwegian is a highly ambiguous language. We have two official versions of Norwegian, and so we have two words for 'reality'. One is 'røyndom'. 'Røyn' means something you can experience, something you can learn, but also something that takes a toll, something that gets you worn down. It's not static, but a dynamic concept, an expression of change. Its meaning is similar to the meaning of suffering. The other, the most common word for reality, is 'virkelighet' (like the German 'wirklichkeit'). 'Virke' means functioning, so 'virkelighet' is "that which happens when it's 'working/functioning' ". ‘Virke' also means 'seem'. If you want to say in Norwegian "it seems to be that way, but it's not", you use the same word! (det *virker* som ...") I think it's interesting and an example of etymology clarifying philosophy. What are the Pali and Sanskrit words for reality? Is "reality" an accurate translation? What English word – like the Norwegian ones – could be used instead to better represent what actually is the nature of reality?

From wiki: "Tathā means "thus" in Sanskrit and Pali, and Buddhist thought takes this to refer to what is called "reality as-it-is" (yathābhūta). This reality is also referred to as "thusness" or "suchness" (tathātā)" So, are the two words synonymous? For example, could one say "tathātāgata" and would it mean the same as "tathāgata"? And, taking -gata to mean "being", is it like the following? tathāgata = thus being / real being tathātāgata = thusness being / reality being Also, if some kind soul could upload a pronunciation in sanskrit of the two words online, e.g to vocaroo, I'd be impermenantly grateful.

Do we know any Zen teachers/masters that do not have Chinese origins and do not speak Chinese? For example English? P.S. I know that such type of logical questions are taken humorously in the zen culture, as it does not really matter but still my "small mind" is curious. Does one need to know Chinese in order to get to the heart of the teachings?

Is most of the Chinese content (books or articles) about Zen Buddhism, available on the internet, written in simplified or traditional Chinese? And of course, now and then we want to buy printed books: so what about them? Is simplified or traditional more widely used?

We always talk and think about self as a noun. When reading Buddhist philosophy, I have never seen exceptions to this. Both "common sense looking" and "metaphysical looking" is looking for *the* self. For me, it has been helpful to think about the word 'self' as a verb. Something like this: Self is action, even the sheer directedness of mind is an action. "I" self therefore "I" am. Apart from that, "I" am not. There is no looker apart from the looking, no self apart from the selfing. To me, the question "what/where is the 'I' doing the selfing?" is redundant. The self is the (dependently arisen) selfing. If, and only if, the causes and conditions for selfing is present, there is selfing. If they're not present in the first place, or removed, there's no selfing. Why even assume or presuppose that there could be the slightest possibility of finding this “thing” self? Why look? It’s not helpful at all, in my opinion. Does anyone know thinkers/writers explicitly talking and thinking about self as action/verb?