Dear Jim,

> Thank you for your reply which I thought informative and certainly
> helpful.

Glad you found it of interest.

> So far, you have mentioned the derivation of 'citta' (mind)
> from the roots 'cit' and 'ci' as found outside of the Theravaada, but
> there's been no mention of another one related to 'citra' in the sense
> of 'variegated' which I think may be derived from the root 'citt'

Citra is linked with citta in Skt Buddhist texts, but I think it is more
likely to be derived from CI + tra -- the meaning of CI makes that quite
feasible. My guess is the root CITR mentioned by Panini is a back-formation
from citra rather than the other way round.

> I saw the word 'cintita' which I thought might lend some support for the

derivation of citta

> from cint. Just needs a closer look.

I'll check it out too when I can.

Re: Bodhisattva = bodhisakta

> Yes, I think there is a good possibility.

Thanks for the Pali references -- I was not aware of them. They definitely
strengthen the argumanet for that derivation.

> Have you ever come across any mention of pratyekabodhisattvas or

"sraavakabodhisattvas in

> non-Theravaadin texts?

Not sure about the former but the latter definitely rings bells. In some
early or even mid-period Mahayana texts, the idea that there are 'sraavakas
who are also bodhisattvas is quite acceptable. I have recently finished a
translation of the Mahayana Maha-parinirvana-sutra (MPNS) which is an
important source for the social back-ground of the emergence of Mahayana and
they are found in that text. This sutra also goes some way to demolish the
orthodox view that Mahayana originated as a lay-centred movement. It seems
that there was a third group around who were neither bhik.sus nor
lay-people, but a peripatetic group who called themselves
"dharma-kaathikas", travelling from stupa centre to stupa centre, preaching
to all and sundry. It is said that they did not follow a Vinaya per se but
followed a kind of vinaya of their own derived from the sutras. These peopl
e then moved into closer contact with the vihaaras and established
themselves there. One major concern of the MPNS is monastic laxity and,
curiously, many of the failings that come in for severe criticism are
precisely those allowed under the let-out clauses in the Mula-sarvastivadin
Vinaya. The MPNS shows some connections with the Mahasanghikas but
convergently -- that is to say, the MPNS pioneers were not originally
Mahasanghikas but moved in and tightened up their Vinaya in some respects as
well as influencing their doctrines.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge