Dear Jim,

Thank you for sharing your research findings with us.
I have done a little further digging myself. The word "citta" is quite
ancient as it is also found several times in the Rig Veda and later words
down to the pre-Buddhist Upanishads.
Here are the occurences in the RV:

1.163.11: Your citta, fleeting like the wind.
1.170.1: If another's citta is to be followed, one's own intention is lost.
5.7.9: Agni is asked to place citta into his mortal devotees.
10.128.6: May the citta of one's awakened enemies be destroyed
10.166.4: [a spell to kill a rival]I take from you your citta, your vrata &
your community.
10.191.3: May the mantra be united, the community united, united the manas
and united also the citta.

I am not a Veda specialist so I am not sure how "citta" should be translated
in each if these citations but one meaning is obviously "mind" or similar.
It also seems to have others sense which I can't quite pin down though
"knowledge" and "will" are feasible. Nevertheless, as one might expect, all
the later niruktis derive "citta" from the root CIT.

> It appears that the Pali 'citta' would be written in Sanskrit
> as 'citra' which exists but not as a derivative of 'cint' as far as I
> can tell.

This derivation is also well-known in other Buddhist schools. I think
"citra" should be associated with the root "CI" (accumulate) and linked with
"cita" (pp: accumulated; n. a heap, a store). Properly speaking, it is not
possible to derive "citta" from CI. I suspect that here again we are in the
realms of what one might call 'hermeneutical etymology', as with the
derivation proposed in Pali texts. I'll get back to this phemomenon later.
What occurs to me is that Buddhist exegetes working in Sanskrit would also
have been very familiar with one or other of the Prakrits and switch between
the two languages when it suits their purpose. They would have known that
as a Skt word "citta" cannot be derived from CI, but as a Prakrit word (not
necessarily Pali, of course) "citta" can be read as either Skt "citta" or
"citra". Based on that sleight of tongue, they then proposed an alternative
derivation from CI. That Theravadin exegetes and non-Theravadin ones share
this explanation suggests that it is either very old or shared through
scholarly contact.
The Pali CINT derivation is completely unknown, to my knowledge, in
Skt-based Buddhist works. This suggests that it was adopted from
hermeneutical purposes, thus leading to the plurality of "citta" events that
are so beloeved of Theravadins. On the other hand, the CI derivation seems
to have appealed to Skt-based scholar-monks, in the sense that "citta" is a
kind of over-arching filed or container within which the caittas (their
preferred term for cetasikas ) arise, and also where the anu'sayas and
similar are 'stored'. I have appended some typical Sanskrit based
explanations below as an appendicx to this message. (Those who do not want
to be infected with Mahayanitis should delete immediately.)

> The Saddaniiti also has this root listed: 390 citii sa~n~naa.ne -- of

which

> sa~n~naa.na.m is glossed with cihana.m (Skt. cihna.m)

Not found in Sanskrit texts.

> In the Sanskrit Dhaatupaa.tha, the root 'cinta'

Actually, one should not speak of THE Sanskrit Dhaatupaa.tha -- apart from
the obvious Paninian one, there were several others (which also survive to
this day). Generally speaking, it would seem that Buddhist scholars
preferred not to use Panini but one of the other grammatical systems
developed by Buddhist scholars, such as Candragomin. In finer details,
other such Dhaatupaa.thas differed.

I think these hermeneutical etymologies were consciously chosen even though
those using them initially would have known that they were irregular though
this later became forgotten. For example, much later, in tantric exegesis,
we always see "mantra" explained as "man" = manas = the mind + tra = tra.na
= protecting rather than the original man+tra = "a means for thinking". In
passing, the curious word "bodhisattva" is another interesting word. We
have "bodhisatta" in Pali etc, but the "satta" bit can be Sanskritized in
several ways. Based on research in the earliest Chinese translations and
other evidence, it seems that the sense of the "satta" should not be
"sattva" but "sakta" -- so a bodhisatta is 'one who cleaves to bodhi'. Is
this possibility known to Theravadin exegetes ? There is some other
material via Tibetan translations which show that some were still aware of
the "sakta" maaning but they also knew of "sattva" in the sense of
'courage', 'essence', 'disposition', taking "bodhisattva" in all such cases
as a bahuvrihi compound.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge


APPENDIX [NB: not for the faint-hearted :)]

The following quotes show well how "citta" is understood in Skt-based
Buddhist texts. Certain features of the definitions will be familiar to you
but others probably not. The first is from the C7th master Buddhaguhya who
was based at Nalanda University. The others I have translated from a work
by the great medieval Tibetan scholar-saint, Longchenpa. but his
explanations are well-founded on Indian models -- it's just that he is a
convenient source for such material. They might also be interesting because
they show the different style one encounters in Sanskrit-based commentaries
to those composed in Pali. Note that although citta is linked to vitarka
(vitakka) and caitta (= cetasika) to vicaara, it was also understood that
these two terms also have a narrower use as two of the caittas. If you have
any queries, pls let me know.

1. Citta and caitta, which perceive the bare occurrence (sva-ruupa)
and the specific features (vi'se.sa) of an object (artha), are synonymous
with parikalpa. "It is consciousness (vij~naana = citta) which sees the bare
fact of an object being present there": The word "bare" means that it only
apprehends the occurrence of the object (vastu) and not the specific
features since they are rejected by it. "That which sees the special
features of the object is the caitta such as feeling and so forth": Because
it arises therein with such and such specific features. When there is a
thing (bhaava) with satisfying or dissatisfying specific features, it is
feeling which apprehends whether it is a source of pleasure and so on. That
which apprehends the special features of an object (artha), the attributes
which are labelled conventionally as male or female and so forth, is
ideation (sa.mj~naa). The others should be dealt with likewise as
appropriate. Thus, though they (citta & caitta) are associated by having the
same basis (aa'sraya), referent (aalambaana), time and substance (dravya),
they are not associated by having the same perceptual image (aakaara),
because the contradiction (prasa'nga) that there is no difference between
them and consciousness would occur. (Buddhaguhya)

2. The mind is the selectivity (vitarka) which picks out an object
in general terms as "It is this" when you first look at an object, like the
initial knowing with the intellect that something is an utpala lotus. Thus
the *Madhyaanta-vibhaaga* says: "It is consciousness which sees the
referential object (aalambaana) || and it is the mental event (caitta) which
[sees] its special features (vi'se.sa)".
The six kinds of consciousness related to the six kinds of perceptual
objects (vi.saya) emerge from each of the six sense organs, and by
apprehending the perceptual objects, the stream of cognition is determined
as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. In this case, one can define
consciousness (vij~naana) as the element which arises as the individual
perceptual images (aakaara) of colour-form and so forth, the mind (citta) is
what is vaguely aware of the perceptual object in the first instant as a
rough general perceptual image, and the manas refers to the mental events
(caitta) which discriminate its specific attributes and relate to it with
attachment, aversion or delusion, for in the *Bodhisattva-buumi* it is said
that "The appearance of the perceptual object (vi.saya-aabhaasa) is
consciousness, the first selection (vitarka) of it is the mind (citta), and
the subsequent discrimination (vicaara) of its specific attributes is the
manas, i.e. the mental factors (caitta). These three are concomitantly
associated (sa.mprayukta) and are omnipresent (sarvatraga) in nature"

3. Moreover, when there is the mind, the mental factors (caittas) also
partake of the omnipresence of the mind by concomitance and association with
it. Since the pervasion of the mental factors by the mind has been
established, it also is also present wherever the mental factors occur
through their being linked and associated with it. Though the element which
focuses in the first instant upon the general characteristics or bare fact
of a perceptual object when it is assessed by awareness is conventionally
termed the "mind", and that which assesses the component attributes is
termed the "mental factors", in fact they are nothing more than the actual
awareness and discrimination (vicaara) of the perceptual object.

4. The citta is cognition of the bare occurrence of an object, while the
mental functions (caitta) are what discriminate (vicaara) its specific
features. Hence in this instance, the specific features are secondarily
generated through the generation of the bare occurrence, just as the
acquistion of something follows on from the generation of the citta which
desires it.