I'm looking to translate into English the name Namkha Chenpo Dewachen Gompa. Any idea of its precise meaning? Thanks a lot!

The Pali term "Arati" is defined in Sutta Central as https://suttacentral.net/define/arati >dislike, discontent, aversion Others translate it differently, however. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, for example, translates it as "resentment." What textual evidence is there from the Pali Suttas, as well as the parallels, that supports one or the other of these translations?

SN38.14 describes three types of duhkha: > “Reverend, there are these three forms of suffering. “Tisso imā, > āvuso, dukkhatā. The suffering inherent in painful feeling; the > suffering inherent in conditions; and the suffering inherent in > perishing. Dukkhadukkhatā, saṅkhāradukkhatā, vipariṇāmadukkhatā—These > are the three forms of suffering.” I have found a few instances that allude to vipariṇāmadukkhatā being the stress associated with being wrong, having wrong view, wrong perception, not knowing, etc. > Thag 21.1 “Your mind is on fire “Saññāya vipariyesā, because of a > perversion of perception. > > an3.117 It’s when someone has right view, an undistorted > perspective, such as: > > AN 10.85 ‘My dear friend, I didn’t lie or speak hollow words. But > I had gone mad, I was out of my mind.’ There are other like usages (see DN33 ). So why is vipariṇāmadukkhatā translated as stress of change or disappearance of happiness - these seem to be within the scope of saṅkhāradukkhatā (impermanence of conditions)? I have not found any usage that resembles the 'stress of change'. can you point it out?

This is a question of practical interest. My personal practice is generally to feel guilty for bad deeds, but today I tried *admitting* fault and guilt without *feeling* guilty, and it was much less stressful. I do not know which is correct. Is there any textual evidence on whether the Buddha suggested feeling remorse or not? ---------- **Sutta 42.8** from the Samyutta Nikaya , *Sankha Sutta*, discusses remorse, but the following two translations seem to contradict each other, in which one mentions remorse is not useful, whereas the other mentions that remorse is part of reflecting on having done something not good. Is one of these translations more historically accurate than the other? ---------- The [Access To Insight](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.008.than.html) translation reads: > 'The Blessed One > in a variety of ways criticizes & censures the taking of life, and > says, "Abstain from taking life." There are living beings that I have > killed, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was > not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed > of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right > then the taking of life, and in the future refrains from taking life. ---------- The [Sutta Central](https://suttacentral.net/sn42.8/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=sidenotes&highlight=false&script=latin) translation reads: > But consider when a Realized One arises in the world… In many ways he > criticizes and denounces killing living creatures… And there’s a > disciple who is devoted to that teacher. Then they reflect: ‘In many > ways the Buddha criticizes and denounces killing living creatures, > saying: “Stop killing living creatures!” But I have killed living > creatures to a certain extent. That’s not right, it’s not good, and I > feel remorseful because of it. But I can’t undo what I have done.’ > Reflecting like this, they give up killing living creatures, and in the > future they don’t kill living creatures. ---------- (I’ve been trying to translate the Pali but I've only gotten so far as that one should "renounce" the evil deed.)

In dependent origination , the word “ viññāṇa” arises and it is translated as consciousness. I am not satisfied and I guess some other members of this site are also not satisfied because then the dependent origination becomes: given volitional formations, consciousness arises. Isn’t volitional formation and ignorance itself due to consciousness? Therefore in order to understand “viññāṇa” I need to understand what is the Sanskrit root for the Pali word “ viññāṇa”? I looked up online Sanskrit dictionary, there is a word “vinn ” which means “understanding “. Do you think “vinn” is the root word for “ viññāṇa” ?

At 2:48 in this video of the acceptance speech, a Tibetan prayer is recited. What is its translation into English? I think it's something like "Gautama, the true Buddha... free from all precept". I once saw a translation in a YouTube comment but have lost it.

Is there buddhajayanti sinhala translation of tipitaka for Kindle device? Pdf format is not good with kindle. Is there any other format of buddhajayanti sinhala tipitaka for kindle. Please let me know..

In Bhikku Bodhi's translations, "without discoverable beginning" suttas end with: > This Samsara is without discoverable beginning. It is enough to be liberated *from them*. Liberated from what, in this context?

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 am curious about the idea of calling *sila* (all precepts and vows) as ethics. When did this translation appeared? Or who interpreted *sila* as ethics or something similar to ethics? This is not to say that it is incorrect or comprehensive, but ethics as a western category of thought has been used as an auxiliary concept to understand sila. Which scholar/s did this?

Where are the English Translations of Commentary? Have all of them translated in to English?

I've been reading/studying E F Shumacher's *A Guide for the Perplexed*, a philosophical book about the nature of knowledge and our capacity for understanding the world, especially in relation to "higher" and "lower" processes of humanity, (IE, prayer or meditation vs hunger or fear) and I'm hoping a Buddhist perspective can help me to understand one aspect of it better. In it, he refers to self-awareness as the level of human existence that is activated or discovered by mindfulness-meditation, by dismissing the thoughts that come from the level of consciousness. He says that self-awareness produces insights rather than thoughts. Shumacher was a Catholic at the time of writing this, but I understand that he studied and was influenced heavily by Buddhism, and I believe that is where his ideas about thought come from. I am not a Buddhist, though I have tried meditation. An idea that I have struggled with in all of this is the definition of thought. I have always considered the processes by which one would analyze or dismiss a thought to also be thinking. I would consider an insight to be a type of thought, not something higher than a thought. I am now struggling to understand whether I simply have too broad of a definition for thought, or am simply so philosophically-challenged that I have never experienced this process-above-thought discussed by Shumacher and Buddhism. Can you help me understand what the Buddhist definition of a "thought" is? Do you have a different word for the process by which one would dismiss a thought or analyze a thought while meditating? Everything beyond this point is my own speculation on the subject, for clarity or analysis. If you already understand my problem or misunderstanding, feel free to skip it. I have wondered if Freud's ego and super-ego may shed light on this. I would say that "thought" is the word used to describe the processes of both the ego and super-ego, but I wonder if Shumacher and Buddhism would consider "thought" to be what the ego does, and perhaps have a different word for the processes of the super-ego. I have also imagined, as Shumacher does in his book, the human being as a programmer and computer. (The programmer being the self and the computer being the human brain) The human computer carries out all the day-to-day activities we do without higher thought, while the human programmer directs the computer and programs it so that it behaves as desired. In this analogy, I would consider all communication between the "computer" and "programmer" to be thought, but I wonder if Shumacher and Buddhism considers thought to be information passed from the computer to the programmer, while directions passed from the programmer to the computer is something else. I have included the translation tag, as I suspect my answer may largely pivot on the translation of the word "thought" from Buddhist texts into English, and whether there is a more thorough translation of it that could explain this.

At the beginning of his talk, The Vanishing of Greed, Hatred, and Delusion , **Ajahn Viradhammo** reads verses about Nibbana from a translation by Nyanatiloka of a fragment of the Pali Canon, from the Asaṅkhata Saṃyutta I suppose: > This, Oh monks, is called the Unconditioned: the vanishing of greed, hatred, and delusion. This Oh monks, is called the Boundless: the vanishing of greed, hatred, and delusion. This Oh monks, is called Freedom from [?]: the vanishing of greed, hatred, and delusion. This Oh monks, is called the True: ... This Oh monks, is called the Further Shore: ... This Oh monks, is called the Subtle: ... This Oh monks, is called the [?]: ... This Oh monks, is called the Ageless: ... This Oh monks, is called the Permanent: ... This Oh monks, is called the Beyond of All Manifoldness: ... This Oh monks, is called the Peace: ... This Oh monks, is called the Deathless: ... This Oh monks, is called the Sublime: ... This Oh monks, is called the Auspicious: ... This Oh monks, is called the [?]: ... This Oh monks, is called the Wondrous: ... This Oh monks, is called the Sorrowless: ... .. etc... Is anyone aware of such a translation by Nyanatiloka being available on line ? Thank you for having taken the time to read this, your kind and generous help is very much appreciated.

In "The Longer Advice to Rāhula" the following appears: >Muditaṁ, rāhula, bhāvanaṁ bhāvehi. >Muditañhi te, rāhula, bhāvanaṁ bhāvayato yā arati sā pahīyissati. Bhante Sujato translates this as >Meditate on rejoicing. >For when you meditate on rejoicing any discontent will be given up. Thanissaro Bhikkhu: > “Develop the meditation of empathetic joy. For when you are developing the meditation of empathetic joy, resentment will be abandoned. Bhikkhu Vagga: > "Rāhula, develop meditation on altruistic joy; for when you develop meditation on altruistic joy, any discontent will be abandoned. Can somebody please explain which terms correspond to which here, and how the translation is carried out? Thank you

Dukkha is traditionally translated as suffering, but I heard from a scholar of Eastern history that it's better translated as being unexpected. In my interpretation (not just in what I heard), that suffering only describe what you feel, not the reason making it. Therefore, being unexpected is a better translation. Is this reasonable? If suffering is still a good fit, then what would be the equivalent Pali/Sanskrit word for being unexpected?

I am a total outsider not well-versed in the Buddhist tradition, and apologize in advance if some of the terms/names I'll write are placed out of context or misused. To cut the story short, I am looking for a transcription (and possibly translation into English) of a certain Tantric overtone singing (Rgyud Skad) [fragment](https://www.dropbox.com/s/hg7c1ty973k403o/fragment.wav?dl=0) , used as a sound effect at the end of each level in Painkiller 2004 videogame. According to my research, I believe it to be a sample from Yamāntaka mantra as performed by Gyütö Monks on [this](https://www.discogs.com/en/Tibetan-Institute-Of-Performing-Arts-Dhama-Suna-%E0%BD%96%E0%BD%A2%E0%BD%98%E0%BD%A6%E0%BD%A6/release/1327226) album, [4th track](https://www.dropbox.com/s/s1av0jtonl5epo2/mantra.mp3?dl=0) , starting at 0:32 time mark. I tried to make sense of the chanting by reading [Meditation on Vajrabhairava](http://lit.lib.ru/img/i/irhin_w_j/vadjrabhajrava/victory-over-evil.pdf) and attempting to "sync" the text by looking at the places where performers play the bell — obviously, I have little to no idea of what I am doing and that didn't ring any bells (pun intended) :)

A Hindu site by the name "Agniveer" has claimed that Buddha never rejected the Vedas. To substantiate their claim, they have quoted a few verses from the Sutta Nipata to show Buddha's respect for the Vedas: > In Sutta Nipat 192, Mahatma Buddha says that: > > Vidwa Cha Vedehi Samechcha Dhammam Na Uchchavacham Gachhati > Bhooripanjo. > > People allow sense-organs to dominate and keep shuffling between high > and low positions. But the scholar who understands Vedas understands > Dharma and does not waver. > > Sutta Nipat 503: > > Yo Vedagu Gyanarato Sateema ……. > > One should support a person who is master of Vedas, contemplative, > intelligent, helpful if you desire to inculcate similar traits. > > Sutta Nipat 1059: > > Yam Brahmanam Vedagum Abhijanjya Akinchanam Kamabhave Asattam…… > > One gets free from worldly pains if he is able to understand a Vedic > Scholar who has no wealth and free from attraction towards worldly > things. > > Sutta Nipat 1060: > > Vidwa Cha So Vedagu Naro Idha Bhavabhave Sangam Imam Visajja….. > > I state that one who understands the Vedas rejects attraction towards > the world and becomes free from sins. > > Sutta Nipat 846: > > Na Vedagu Diththia Na Mutiya Sa Manameti Nahi Tanmayoso…. > > One who knows Vedas does not acquire false ego. He is not affected by > hearsay and delusions. > > Sutta Nipat 458: > > Yadantagu Vedagu Yanjakaale Yassahuti Labhe Taras Ijjeti Broomi > > I state that one who acquires Ahuti in Havan of a Vedic scholar gets > success. > > Now people who post these on internet say that Gautam Buddha didn't > opposed Vedas he opposed the evil practices done in name of Vedas like > animal sacrifice, caste system Now, personally I have found many of the site's claims and quotations unreliable. However, I would still like to verify these verses so could anybody tell me if these quotations are true or fabricated?

I bow to you with hopes of happiness, peace, safety and health for you. And I come with a dire need for help! I am a practicing buddhist and I regularly visit a thai temple for chanting but I know no thai and they don't have their chanting written in roman alphabet and with translation so I can understand and chant. I have recorded the whole chanting and provide a link to the recording here. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gxmUWA7XxR7OjhOZYXbPA6MxZvsP84kR/view?usp=sharing Could anyone please provide me or refer me to the chanting written in thai with roman alphabet letters ***and*** an english translation? If you provide me with links then could you please point out the exact parts of the texts that correspond to this chanting? This would be of great help to me because I can finally understand what we're saying and feel a greater connection to the teachings and to my fellow Sangha-members. Full of gratitude I bow.

Listed below are three translations of Akkosa Sutta provided in access to in access to insight Which translation has the correct meaning? The third translation is not far from the common ethics i.e., the virtue of temperance found in most major religions of the world, but what is presented in the first two translations goes beyond that. Accommodating an angry man sheepishly, I mean responding to him/her kindly to calm them, does no good to the angry man because they will think that they were in the right when they are angry. The short story leading to the sutta's stanza does indicate that too. As I understand it Bhikkhu Thanissaro's translation is missing the key part which is present in the two other translations "He who repays an angry man in kind Is worse than the angry man"...But I may be wrong. > Acharya Buddharakkhita translation > > He who repays an angry man in kind Is worse > than the angry man; Who does not repay anger in kind, He alone wins > the battle hard to win. ...... > Maurice O'Connell Walshe translations > > If a man's abused and answers back, Of the > two he shows himself the worse. He who does not answer back in kind, > Celebrates a double victory. ...... > Thanissaro Bhikkhu translations > > You make things worse when you flare up at someone who's angry. > Whoever doesn't flare up at someone who's angry wins a battle hard > to win.

What do you regard as noteworthy differences in the popular pali to english translations of the Sutta?