Question is in the title. I can guess the Pali equivalent of Sanskrit anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, but I’m wondering if it occurs anywhere in Pali texts?
1 Like
Maybe you meant “anuttaraṁ sammāsambodhiṁ” in Pali?
If that’s the case, that phrase occurs like few hundred times 
6 Likes
Oh, okay. Good. I’m okay with Indic languages until it involves declensions and such (which is to say, not at all aside from looking up roots). BTW, in Gandhari, it’s anutara saṃmasaṃbosi - the Chinese transliteration anəutala sammiɛusambodei matches Pali best, mainly because it maintains the -dhi in bodhi.
1 Like
anutara saṃmasaṃbosi=
saṃmasaṃbos̲i
Where the underline s is fricativisation, representing historical dh.
I had a quick question about the ancient Chinese transliteration for @cdpatton
Would it be possible to differentiate anuttara and anutara in transliteration? What about anutara and anutala? I’m curious.
1 Like
The short answer is, “Not really.” Chinese syllables don’t have equivalents for several Indic sounds (r and v being the most problematic). Their syllables center around vowels rather than consonants, so there’s a mismatch that’s difficult to overcome (Chinese has many vowel combinations, Indic languages have many consonant combinations). Double consonants can theoretically be represented if it’s possible to pair a syllable with a consonant stop (t, k, or m) with another syllable beginning with the same sound. I’ve seen a few cases that seem to do that.
The longer answer is that late (Song-era) Chinese transliteration schemes created syllabaries for Sanskrit words. That is, specific characters represented specific Sanskrit syllables. Earlier transliterations don’t seem that systematic, but a project for this summer is to collect all the transliterations in DA and look for patterns. DA isn’t a well-maintained text, so I suspect some of the problem transliterations are later corruptions by copyists.
2 Likes