The English word ‘reality’ (from the Latin res, "matter” or “thing") is very misleading and says the opposite of what “reality” actually is. The Latin 'res' is a very deceptive word, it makes you think about something static, finite.
It’s etymologically very interesting to look at reality from a Norwegian perspective. The Norwegian words are more dynamic and the reason might be that Norwegian is a highly ambiguous language.
We have two official versions of Norwegian, and so we have two words for 'reality'. One is 'røyndom'. 'Røyn' means something you can experience, something you can learn, but also something that takes a toll, something that gets you worn down. It's not static, but a dynamic concept, an expression of change. Its meaning is similar to the meaning of suffering.
The other, the most common word for reality, is 'virkelighet' (like the German 'wirklichkeit'). 'Virke' means functioning, so 'virkelighet' is "that which happens when it's 'working/functioning' ".
‘Virke' also means 'seem'. If you want to say in Norwegian "it seems to be that way, but it's not", you use the same word! (det virker som ...") I think it's interesting and an example of etymology clarifying philosophy.
What are the Pali and Sanskrit words for reality? Is "reality" an accurate translation? What English word – like the Norwegian ones – could be used instead to better represent what actually is the nature of reality?
