What is the meaning of the Pali terms "takkahetu" and "nayahetu"? Those terms are named in AN 3.65 when in his talk to the Kalamas Buddha dismissed these methods as a means to end suffering.

travellers - I was struck by the term maññassavā in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta. > They have four foundations, standing on which the streams of > identification don’t flow. And when the streams of identification > don’t flow, they’re called a sage at peace. yattha ṭhitaṃ maññassavā > nappavattanti, maññassave kho pana nappavattamāne muni santoti > vuccati. It is translated as "the currents of construing," by Ven. Thanissaro and as "the streams of identification," on suttacentral.net (Ven. Sujato?). There is an elaboration of maññassavā later in the sutta as, "These are all forms of identifying: ‘I am’, ‘I am this’, ‘I will be’" etc. > ‘Asmī’ti, bhikkhu, maññitametaṃ, ‘ayamahamasmī’ti maññitametaṃ, > ‘bhavissan’ti maññitametaṃ... a) First - I assume the term is made up of "(a form of) maññ/maññati + assavā"? [PTS PED] Maññita (nt.) [pp. of maññati] illusion, imagination M i.486. Nine maññitāni (the same list is applied to the phanditāni, the papañcitāni & sankhatāni) at Vbh 390: asmi, ayam aham asmi, bhavissaŋ, na bhavissaŋ, rūpī bhavissaŋ, arūpī bh., saññī bh., asaññī bh., nevasaññī -- nâsaññī -- bh. Assava (adj.) [ā + sunāti, śru] loyal D i.137; Sn 22, 23, 32; J iv.98; vi.49; Miln 254; an˚ inattentive, not docile DhA i.7. I only sort-of get how the compound is then understood as "streams of identification" (**does the 'streams' derive from 'asava'[ā + sru]? Flow?**)... b) Where is this term "coming from," doctrinally, that is? Is it commonly used in the texts, esp. in the suttas, as a form of "I-consciouness/construction?" Are there any commentarial and/or scholarly discussions on this process of "flow of construing/identification?" Thanks much in advance! ~ananda

1. Was Pali the language spoken during the time of the Buddha, and would he have spoken this language? 2. Are the suttas contained in the Pali Canon verbatim what the Buddha said, or would things have been changed due to centuries of oral transmission?

Here is another non-essential question born from a dead thing. Is Pali the native language of Buddha's birth town? Apparently the Shakyas are bilingual (according to wiki), and they derived from a **Munda** people (according to wiki). Was Pali spoken by Munda people? It makes me wonder if Buddha uttered, muttered the Pali b/c he was unfamiliar with it, or b/c maybe the language was a spontaneous birth? Instead, was Pali native to Magadha - according to wiki Buddha was born north of Magadha - where Buddha enlightened? wiki (unreliable source) says : > Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, lived much of his life in the > kingdom of Magadha. He attained enlightenment in Bodh Gaya,

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?

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.

It is said by the bhikkhuni Vajira:

“Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word ‘chariot’ is used, So, when the aggregates exist, There is the convention ‘a being.’ SN 5.10

However, in the Yamaka Sutta:

“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.” ... “But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life ...” SN 22.85

Yamaka denies the aggregates taken together as the Tathagata is real and actual. On the other hand, Vajira seems to be affirming that the aggregates taken together is a convention. The words in pali for this phrase of real and actual are *saccato thetato* and for convention the word is *sammuti.* When he performed an analysis - as the Buddha advised Yamaka to do - he tried to find the *saccato thetato* self, but came up empty. Does that mean that Vajira erred in naming 'a being' as a convention? Is this a true contradiction? Why did the Buddha advise Yamaka to try and find a self through analysis? Wasn't this leading Yamaka into a thicket of views? UPDATE: This was too close to a seeded question. Although it was asked sincerely in that I was curious to know others responses (particular users on this site who I respect and admire) I do have my own idea of how I would answer this question (at least I do now and I'm not totally convinced I didn't have that idea already when I first opened it) so I should not have opened it out of mere curiosity. I was going to delete it given it goes against the site moderation guidelines, but then there are good answers and we are discouraged to delete questions where people have attempted to give good and thoughtful answers so I will leave it, but I do regret opening it in the first place.

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 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.

I read the following on the internet: > But the core of the **Realization has nothing to do with causality**, > otherwise Nirvana would still be subordinate to Samsara, while in fact > Nirvana is famously unconditioned which is to say it transcends > causality. The first time it [Nirvana] is perceived is referred to as a realization aka awakening to a truth never seen before. What Pali or Sanskrit words in Buddhism are usually used to mean 'Realization'? Is Nirvana a Realization? Is Realization a nama-dhamma (mental phenomena) or can it be an asankhata-dhatu (unconditioned phenomena)? Can Realization be unconditioned & have nothing to do with causality? What Pali or Sanskrit words in Buddhism are usually used to refer to attaining the experience of Nibbana?

A Wikipedia article about Sati uses the word "upassanā" > According to Grzegorz Polak, the four upassanā have been misunderstood by the developing Buddhist tradition, ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(Buddhism) However, I could not find the word in Pali dictionary and a Google search did not explain the term. The term 'nupassana' however is found on Google but neither in Pali dictionar . There is upasana in Sanskrit. What is this term upassana or nupassana and where is it used?

What is the interpretation of parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation? This seems to have different interpretation and translations? What are the different interpretations and translations and what might be the most correct interpretation according to different line of practice? How is the particular interpretation rationalised?

From the Six Sets of Six MN 148 . English > Dependent on **the mind and mind objects**, mind-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there is feeling; with feeling as condition there is craving. Pali > manañca paṭicca **dhamme** ca uppajjati manoviññāṇaṁ, tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā, vedanāpaccayā taṇhā. Bhante Sujato translates it as "thoughts" > Mind consciousness arises dependent on **the mind and thoughts**. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. Feeling is a condition for craving. But wouldn't mind objects be a superset of thoughts? In addition to thoughts, what else are mind objects? Why did Bhikkhu Bodhi choose "mind object" as his translation?

I notice many Sinhalese posting on Western chatsites about Buddhism. However, I often notice these Sinhalese don't have particularly strong empathy with the Pali of the suttas. I sometimes feel "dukkha" ("suffering") when having to answer their questions. Is the Sinhalese language very different to Pali? Should Sinhalese be able to learn Pali easier than Westerners?

I found an explanation of Kalama Sutta in a website which is said to be from a Tipitaka teacher in Sri Lanka. Is Kalama Sutta only about Kilesas? > Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for Lobha-dosa-moha? > > The famous Sri Lankan lay Dhamma-preacher Saminda Ranasingha > (aathaapi.org ) insists on two points when he is explaining Kālāma > sutta. > > 1. Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for **Non-Buddhists** > 3. Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for **Lobha-dosa-moha** (and > Alobha-adosa-amoha) > > I’m here going to introduce the 2nd point of him, for seeing your > comments. > > > > Rest part of the sutta is also evaluated in the same way by him. > > So he insists that Kālāmā Sutta can not be applied for evaluating > other things mentioned in the Tipitaka. > > **If we consider the phrasing-style of the last paragraph in the above** > > ***“Iti kho, kālāmā, yaṃ taṃ avocumhā – … iti yaṃ taṃ vuttaṃ, idametaṃ > paṭicca vuttaṃ.*** > > ***So, as I said, kalamas – … Thus was it said. And in > reference to this was it said.*** > > This style can be seen in many Suttas in Anguttara nikaya and Majjima > nikaya where, > > 1. An “Uddesa (recitation passage)” is introduced first. > 2. Then it is questioned why was it mentioned. (in most cases) > 3. Then the Niddesa (explanation of the Uddesa) is menioned. > 4. At the end, it is concluded that the above Uddesa was mentioned for > Niddesa. > >Eg: Sakkapañhasutta, Araṇavibhaṅgasutta, Saḷāyatanavibhaṅgasutta, Dutiyasaññāsutta, Paṭhamamahāpañhāsutta, Titthāyatanādisutta … etc. > > ***Saḷāyatanavibhaṅgasutta:*** > >“‘Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbāni, > …’ti **– ayamuddeso saḷāyatanavibhaṅgassa.** “‘Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni > veditabbānī’ti **– iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ. Kiñcetaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ?** > ‘Cakkhāyatanaṃ sotāyatanaṃ ghānāyatanaṃ jivhāyatanaṃ kāyāyatanaṃ > manāyatanaṃ. Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbānī’ti **– iti yaṃ taṃ > vuttaṃ idametaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ.** > > “‘The six interior sense fields should be understood. …’ **This is the > recitation passage for the analysis of the six sense fields.** ‘The six > interior sense fields should be understood.’ **– That’s what I said, but > why did I say it?** There are the sense fields of the eye, ear, nose, > tongue, body, and mind. ‘The six interior sense fields should be > understood.’ **– That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.**

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”?

I have recently been learning Pali, and have heard that Sanskrit is somewhat similar. With a decent knowledge of Pali, is it possible to read Nagarjuna, for instance, perhaps with just some of the basics of Sanskrit? Or would it be more or less unintelligible?