Dear Jim,

> The derivation of 'citra.m' in the U.naadiko.sa (4.165) with
> 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.

In fact, this idea of painting etc in association with "citta" is also
well-known in Skt texts. One that immediately came to mind is the line in
the Kaa'syapa-parivarta (a very early Mahayana sutra): citta.m hi
citra-kara-sad.r'sa vicitra-karma-abhisa.mskara.natayaa [KPpara99] (The mind
is like an artist because it creates various kinds of actions).

> [From your examples, I've decided to start capitalizing the roots in
> my emails also...copycat me]

It makes things a bit clearer when using a plain ASCII set without the root
symbol. But I urge caution: as you know, "great minds think alike and fools
seldom differ". I wonder which category we are in -- the latter no doubt :)

> I did a bit more checking and found that the Burmese version has
> 'cittita.m' instead of 'cintita.m' which just complicates an already
> difficult matter.

It's a pity that the ms tradition is so late for Pali texts -- though I
believe the Burmese edition has good readings. Any idea how similar the -tt-
and -nt- conjucts are in Burmese script ? I find that one can sometimes
explain lexical peculiarities by thinking of the original script. There is
a old rule in ms editing that the more diificult or unusual reading should
be accepted (unless there are overwhelming reasons not to) because of the
very well-attested tendency for scribes to "correct" and dumb down.

> 'Cittita.m' may be peculiar to the Burmese as a
> 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.

In fact, the Burmese reading is corroborated by the Chinese SA267. However,
things are a bit complicated because the "cara.na.m" picture in the Pali is
said to be a *bird* (also called cara.na = a cockerel) with diverse colours
in SA267 (no mention of a picture here). But, in this example, something
like "citre.naiva citrayati" is suggested. The next paragraph about the
diversity of animals is omitted and the discourse moves straight on to the
example of the artist. This perhaps suggests some sort of textual
corruption in the Pali regarding the so-called picture "cara.na.m" -- I find
it strange that the Buddha would give an example concerning a picture and
then immediately after give another example about an artist painting a
picture. Ta.m ki.m ma~n~nasi ?

> > the idea that there are 'sraavakas who are also bodhisattvas is quite

acceptable.

> That's good to know.

Early Mahayana is made up of many strands which is why I sometimes like to
speak of "mahayanas". It is often not the case that there is an opposition
between 'sravaka and bodhisattva but only between different types of
'sravakas.

> This is off-topic but would you know whether or not Jinendrabuddhi,
> 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?

I cannot claim to be an expert in this area -- I think there was only one
Buddhist Jinendrabuddhi so it is possible that the two are the same person.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge