I disagree with due respect. One doesnt need to translate the compound to explain it, one can explain it in Pali. So translation is not the impediment here to gain a sense of the word. You can explain your understanding in Pali if you like.
A pali compound cannot be split in the way you’ve suggested. When you split it you have to establish the declensions for each member and show how each member is interrelated nominally to other members within the compound and how the sense of the compound is derived syntactically.
So santivarapadam should be split in this manner grammatically : santisu yā varā sā santivarā (visesanuttarapada-kammadhāraya-samāso), santivaram yaṁ padaṁ taṁ santivarapadam (visesana-pubbapada-kammadhāraya-samāso). Alternatively it can also be “santivarāyā yaṃ padaṃ tam santivarapadam” (saṭṭhī-tappurisa).
If you have a different interpretation of it that makes sense to you and is in accordance with grammar and syntax, that too needs to be split like this not like the way you’ve done.
This is how another compound pabhassaravaravaṇṇanibhā is explained in the commentary - “pabhassaravaravaṇṇanibheti nibhāti dibbatīti nibhā, vaṇṇova nibhā vaṇṇanibhā, ativiya obhāsanato pabhassarā chavidosābhāvena varā uttamā vaṇṇanibhā etissāti pabhassaravaravaṇṇanibhā”.
So it is not just me, this is how compounds are to be analyzed normally in Pali (and it is the same method as used in Sanskrit). Unless you show the syntax and the declensions of each member in the compound you cant make sense of the compound.
I disagree, to one who knows the grammar of Pali, it is as clear as day.
If we will never know the proper meaning there is no point studying any Pali text, is there?
It appears that to you knowing the meaning is synonymous with translation (hence you claim that translations are approximations and we can never truly “know” the source). But to a person (living in the 21st century) who is comfortable with the language of the source text, knowing the meaning is possible without any translation whatsoever.
Not so. The sutta says he did not find it in the teaching of Āḷāra-Kālāma, not that he never found it, or that it wasnt findable or existing, or that he gave up trying to find it. In other suttas like MN86, Iti77,Thag1.32, Thag5.11 & Thag14.2 etc., Nibbāna is described as paramaṃ santiṃ which is identical in sense to santivarapadam.
But it’s OK if you don’t want to continue discussing the point, I am just stating it for others who translate Pali to see how Pali compounds are to be made sense of.