From: Stephen Hodge
Message: 5418
Date: 2004-08-29
> The derivation of 'citra.m' in the U.naadiko.sa (4.165) withIn fact, this idea of painting etc in association with "citta" is also
> commentary is 'ciiyate tat' (it is accumulated) showing that its root
> is CI. I was surprised to see in square brackets: [aalekhya.m vaa]
> (writing or painting) as this is exactly the meaning I've been trying
> to associate with the root CITT.
> [From your examples, I've decided to start capitalizing the roots inIt makes things a bit clearer when using a plain ASCII set without the root
> my emails also...copycat me]
> I did a bit more checking and found that the Burmese version hasIt's a pity that the ms tradition is so late for Pali texts -- though I
> 'cittita.m' instead of 'cintita.m' which just complicates an already
> difficult matter.
> 'Cittita.m' may be peculiar to the Burmese as aIn fact, the Burmese reading is corroborated by the Chinese SA267. However,
> footnote in Kashyap's Devanagari ed. notes that 'cintita.m' is also
> found in the Sinhalese and Thai versions, besides
> PTS. In the PTS translation of SN XXII.100, it has been rendered as
> 'thought out' while B. Bodhi has 'has been designed in its diversity'
> in reference to a picture.
> > the idea that there are 'sraavakas who are also bodhisattvas is quiteacceptable.
> That's good to know.Early Mahayana is made up of many strands which is why I sometimes like to
> This is off-topic but would you know whether or not Jinendrabuddhi,I cannot claim to be an expert in this area -- I think there was only one
> the author of the Skt. .tiikaa on Dignaga's Pramaa.nasamuccaya, is the
> same one who (Winternitz says he was a Buddhist) wrote the grammatical
> nyaasa or pa~njikaa on the Kaa"sikav.rtti on Panini's sutras?