Does the expression "anuttara-samma-sambodhi" occur anywhere in Pali?

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 :smiley:


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=


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.