Duhkha instead of dukkha, dharma instead of dhamma, karma instead of kamma, nirvana instead of nibbana, etc. Arguably Pali has a more organized corpus and a live community of speakers? So why Sanskrit? I got this question because I tried to search for some original texts. There are plenty annotated, parallel, digitalized Pali resources online. But sanskrit resources are a mess, and are mainly in the form of ademic papers.

I have been wondering what the connection between the five aggregates and the four establishments are. Below i give the translations into English that i've found when reading Bhikkhu Bodhi (BB) and Thich Nhat Hanh (TNH) Five aggregates: * Form * Feelings * Perceptions * Volitional formations (BB); Mental Formations (TNH) * Consciousness Four establishments of mindfulness: * Body * Feelings * Mind, States of Mind (BB); Mind, Mental Formations (TNH) * Phenomena (BB); Objects of mind (TNH) **How can i think about the connection between these lists?** More specifically: * Why is "perceptions" not included in the establishments of mindfulness? * What's the difference between "form" and "body"? * Are "Volitional formations (BB); Mental Formations (TNH)" and "Mind, States of Mind (BB); Mind, Mental Formations (TNH)" the same thing? * What's the relation between "Consciousness" and "Phenomena (BB); Objects of mind (TNH)"?

A while back I asked https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49503/how-is-the-romanized-pali-tipitaka-on-tipitaka-org-formatted and now I am back at it, trying to reason through [how the XML on tipitaka.org is organized](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1duvdha/how_the_pali_tripitaka_on_tipitakaorg_is_organized/) . I would like to see an example of the Pali Tripitaka text online as a PDF or book of some sort, to see how they handled the "headers problem", to see if they include all the same headers that the tipitaka.org XML does, or if they do it differently in books, etc.. Would you mind sharing 1, 2, or 3 examples of the Pali Tripitaka in different formats (older copies, so we can look at how it was organized and printed before the web)? I would like to publish a modern version of the Tripitaka online, but need to first better understand how the previous publishers of various sorts organized the content (headings, subheadings, chapter labels, etc.).

I read the following in [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/49852/254) : > Snp 5 is a great example in usage that proves kāya in meditation > context is rūpa-kāya by default. > > https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2021/10/kn-snp-5-buddha-knew-about-ambiguities.html [Snp 5.7](https://suttacentral.net/snp5.7/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) says, per Sujato translation: > “As a flame tossed by a gust of wind,” > > “Accī yathā vātavegena khittā, > > replied the Buddha, > > (upasīvāti bhagavā) > > “comes to an end beyond reckoning; > > Atthaṁ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṁ; > > so too, a sage freed from mental **phenomena** > > Evaṁ munī nāma**kāyā** vimutto, > > comes to an end beyond reckoning.” > > Atthaṁ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṁ”. > > I ask the Sakyan about knowledge for them; > > Ñāṇaṁ sakkānupucchāmi, > > how should one like that be guided?” > > kathaṁ neyyo tathāvidho”. [Snp 5.15](https://suttacentral.net/snp5.15/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) says, per Sujato translation: > said Venerable Posāla [to the Buddha], > >(iccāyasmā posālo) > >Consider one who perceives the disappearance of **form**, > > Vibhūta**rūpa**saññissa, > > who has entirely given up **the body**, > > sabba**kāya**ppahāyino; > > and who **sees nothing** at all > > Ajjhattañca bahiddhā ca, > > internally and externally. > > **natthi** kiñcīti **passato**; > >......... > >“Viññāṇaṭṭhitiyo sabbā, > >said the Buddha, > >(posālāti bhagavā) > > “all the planes of consciousness. > > Abhijānaṁ tathāgato; > > And he knows this one who remains, > > Tiṭṭhantamenaṁ jānāti, > > committed to that as their final goal. > > Vimuttaṁ tapparāyaṇaṁ. > > Understanding that desire for rebirth [**coming to be**] > > **Ākiñcaññasambhavaṁ** ñatvā, > > **in the dimension of nothingness** is a fetter, > > Nandī saṁyojanaṁ iti; Where/how do Snp 5.7 & 15 prove kāya in meditation context is rūpa-kāya by default?

The pali phrase "Kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā" is found in many suttas. Bhikkhu Sujato translates this as "when their body broke up, after death" Bhikkhu Bodhi translates this as "with the breakup of the body, after death" Bhikkhu Suddhāso translates this as "When there is separation from the body after death, following the completion of this life" In another translation of Bhikkhu Sujato we see "Kāyassa bhedā" specifically translated again as "body breaks up" We also see this phrase "Kāyassa bhedā" alongside "jīvitapariyādānā" which I believe means termination of life. Are these correct translations referencing the breakup of the body? Does the body refer to the aggregates? Is this referring to the biological death of the body? If not, what is the proper translation?

A little context to describe what I am looking for and why I am looking for it: It is my strong intuition that "suffering" is a label that we give to a phenomenon that, upon deeper inspection, we discover to be an "inner conflict" between (1) a part of us that craves a particular sensory experience (kāma) and (2) a part of us which desires to see things as they actually are (yathabhutañanadassana) and that the resolution of these inner conflicts by relinquishing sense-desires in favor of clear seeing is the means by which suffering is ended and that the āsava are the biases which keep us clinging to sense-desires until we are strong enough to relinquish them and that each resolution of an inner conflict of this nature results in a destruction of the āsava (asavakkhaye ñana) and that each such destruction brings us closer and closer to full awakening wherein all āsava have been removed inner conflicts no longer go unresolved because avijjā (the choice to ignore uncomfortable truths) has been destroyed i.e. we no longer respond to dukkha (the arrow in the heart who purpose is to alert us to that the map of the world we have constructed has made a misprediction that should be corrected) by ignoring evidence that our views are compelling us to make bad decisions in favor of clinging to sense-desires. and that this works because the sensory motor wherein all āsava have been removed inner conflicts no longer go unresolved because avijjā (the choice to ignore uncomfortable truths) has been destroyed i.e. we no longer respond to dukkha (this discomfort of misprediction) by ignoring evidence that our views are compelling us to make bad decisions. brain evolved because it enabled beings to respond to sensory experience with moves in the world that improved the probability of gene survival i.e. the trait of making accurate predictions (saṅkhāra) originally served the master of the zero-sum game of gene-survival (aka "Māra) but the zero-sum game intensified competition which created selection pressure for ever more accurate predictions leading to the point where clinging to the original gene-survival compulsions actually become an impediment to clear seeing and that the choice to relinquish this impediment in favor the welfare of all living beings was the choice the Buddha made when he renounced Māra and attained nibbana. Although everything is a hypothesis, and all hypotheses should be considered impermanent (sabbe saṅkhāra annicā), and all hypothesis are subject to the discomfort of misprediction (sabbe saṅkhāra dukkha), I have a very high degree of certainty that this hypothesis is correct. Nevertheless, the "fly in the ointment" is the uncomfortable truth that I am not familiar with a Pali term to represent the concept of an "inner conflict" between these 2 parts. My best guess is that (1) I am attributing an incorrect meaning to a term that I already know which represents this concept or (2) The term was removed from the canon by the same forces who removed the 4 resolves (adhiṭṭhāna: sacca, pañǹa, cāga, upasama; which described how to actually resolve the unresolved conflict). I'm hoping that (1) is true and that someone here can point me in the right direction.

I read the following on the internet: > In MN 44, the four remembrance-establishings (are) > undistractable-lucidity-themes. > > Any topic for satipatthana "mindfulness", can be a topic for samādhi > nimitta, or a subject for jhāna meditation to investigate with > dhamma-vicaya, vitakka and vicāra, upekkha, sati and sampajāno in the > higher jhānas. The nimitta of samādhi can be visual, or conceptual, > and both, just as it can be in guarding the sense doors. > In AN 4.14, samādhi nimitta suggested one develops are the corpse in > various stages. > > Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu uppannaṃ bhaddakaṃ samādhinimittaṃ > anurakkhati aṭṭhikasaññaṃ puḷavakasaññaṃ vinīlakasaññaṃ > vicchiddakasaññaṃ uddhumātakasaññaṃ. It’s when a monk preserves a > meditation subject that’s a fine basis of undistractible-lucidity: the > perception of a skeleton, a worm-infested corpse, a livid corpse, a > split open corpse, or a bloated corpse. Does the term 'samādhi nimitta' in MN 44 above really mean '*undistractable-lucidity-themes*'? If so, why is 'samādhi nimitta' translated as '*basis of undistractible-lucidity*' in AN 4.14 above?

In this excellent answer giving an in depth explanation of the various uses of sankhata in various suttas, the first usage is explained as 'conditioned things' based upon the famous phrase, "sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā" which is translated in various ways by different translators. Observe:

’All conditioned things are impermanent’ I.B. Horner

’All formations are impermanent’ Bhikkhu Bodhi

’All form is impermanent’ Bhikkhu Bodhi

‘All processes are inconstant’ Thanissaro Bhikkhu

’All conditional things are impermanent’ Suddhāso Bhikkhu

’All conditional things are impermanent’ Ācāriya Buddharakkhita

’That all conditional things are impermanent’ Peter Feldmeier

‘All conditions are impermanent’ Bhikkhu Sujato

‘All conditions are impermanent’ Bhikkhu Ānandajoti

Questions:

1. Are the differences in these translations meaningful?
2. If so, what is the correct translation/meaning?
3. Is it incorrect to translate sankhara in the context of 'sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā' as 'a thing' or 'a phenomena?'
4. Is there any other place in the suttas where we can definitely say that sankhara is used to mean 'a thing' or 'a phenomena?'

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!

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.

Cant find a translation online anywhere, just a quote. Samanattata ' ti samanasukhadukkhabhavo. Ekacco hi danadisu ekam ' pi na paccasimsati. Ekasane nisajjam ekapallanke sayanam ekato bhojanan ' ti evam samanasukhadukkham paccasimsati. So sace gahatthassa jatiya pabbajitassa silena sadiso hoti tass ' ayam samanattata katabba.

Is 'kata nana' a synonym for 'pativedha nana'? I wonder if there is a (slight) difference between these two words. Can they be used as synonyms?

When seeking to refine my mental maps of the world in any domain of expertise to more precisely differentiate between similar terms, I have found a thesaurus to be an invaluable tool. The domain of expertise of the Buddha, namely the path from suffering to the end of suffering, is arguably of more importance than any other domain of expertise, and yet, I am not able to find a Pali thesaurus. Does this exist? Is anyone working on this?

What is 1) the meaning word by word 2) the meaning of the whole sentence 3) the origin of “Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhasa”?

When it is said in dependent origination that "sankhara conditions consciousness", in what way and how does sankhara condition consciousness? And also, how is consciousness conditioning nama rupa? And then nama rupa conditions salayatana again how? Also, nama rupa -- I have heard many different descriptions of what it is, so i would be happy if someone could give the right meaning of nama rupa. Going back to "sankhara conditions consciousness", what consciousness are they refering to -- is it the pure consciousness or limited consciousness? And how can avidja or ignorance and sankhara come before consciousness in dependent origination (because i must first be conscious before i can have ignorance and do sankharas!)?

I am indian. And in all indian languages Priti means love. And even in abhidhamma I found a statement that it's towards the object. interest in object. Whereas sukha is from the object. I sometime feel my breathing so comfortable that i just love/like that effortless breathing. Isn't this pīti? Why we made so difficult word like rapture? And making it more complicated.

I see some teachers express 'namarupam' as 'mentality & materiality' and want to hear what you have to say on this matter.

I'm trying to clarify something I believe I heard a while back. I think I heard the monk instruct the lay person to say "Bhikku Sanghassa Demi" which I believe was later translated as "I give this to the community of monks" Is this correct?

What is the difference between the terms *kamma* and *kiriya* / *kriya*? What is the difference between *kiriya* and *kriya*? Please provide references to *kiriya* / *kriya* from the Pali suttas.

Are there any commentaries in the pali cannon on The Iddhipāda-Vibhaṅga Sutta -- An Analysis Of The Bases Of Power (SN 51:20). And in general, what are some sources for the commentaries, obviously in pali but also in english. (If only in pali, a preference to be able to locate and navigate without knowing much pali.)