about the reading "vitta.m" in the Burmese canon

Dear Eisel


You wrote:
>
>   In Kacc. verse 1-2-4 (~v. 15) we find the following quotation:
>
> "saddhiidha vitta.m purisassa se.t.tha.m"
>
> This is evidently from KN:Sn, Uragavaggo (viz., ch 1), a verse
> appearing in the dialogue with Alavaka, viz., part 10; however, my
> Sinhalese e-text of the passage in question (in the Sn) is utterly
> mangled, including, e.g. "citta.m" given erroneously for "vitta.m".
>
> Is this passage (in the Sn) genuinely different in the Sinhalese KN?
> The Thai KN:Sn seems to be identical to Kacc.'s quotation --but if
> there is a significant difference in the Sinhalese canon this would be
> noteworthy, as Pind's article already has drawn attention to the
> possibility that in at least one instance the Burmese canon was
> corrected with reference to Kacc.
>
>
> I'd like to say that it is not justified, even in the Burmese tradition,
> to correct the Canon reading just because Kacc has a different reading. What
> if Kacc itself is corrupt?
>
> The correction in the Burmese version in fact comes from the Sn-a where
> vitta is commented as "muttama.niaadiinipi vittaani . . .ma.nimuttaadiihi
> vittehi . . .". So the correct reading should be vitta.m, which means
> "wealth, property, possession". We cannot underestimate the value of
> commentaries in textual criticism, for a commentary represents the
> manuscript that its author uses; we can also "see" that manuscript if we use
> the commentary wisely.
>
> with metta
>
> Ven. Pandita
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]