Re: mudhappasanna

My thoughts:

PTS Buddhappasannā makes no sense in the context and is probably a
printing error without Ms authority. The Thai mudu- also makes no sense
and must be a scribal error. So it is between mudha- and muddha-. Since
muddha- is found elsewhere in similar contexts, I would opt for that. I
think mudha- is a nonce word and therefore unlikely, but one could opt
for it as a lectio difficilior. In any case they would both mean the same.

Lance Cousins

> Dear Phra Yuttadhammo,
>
> I checked some of  the readings for the word at Vin III 39. PTS has
> "buddhappasannaaa" with no variants given in the endnotes. CSCD 3 has
> "mudhappasannaa" and a variant "muddhappasannaa" is given for the
> Sinhalese edn. In Kashyap's Indian edition the reading is
> "mudhappasannaa" with three variant readings given: "muduppasannaa"
> (Thai edn) and one each for the PTS and Sinhalese editions (as above).
> To find out which is the correct reading one will have to compare
> their meanings in the context of the Vinaya passage and find out if
> commentaries have anything to say about this compound.
>
> Best wishes,
> Jim
>
>> Just wondering if anyone can clear up this compound, from the
> Vinitavatthu
>> of the first Parajika, for me... it was pointd out to me that the
> PTS has
>> buddhappasanna, and I notice that the Sri Lankan Tipitaka has
>> muddhappasanna.  The version I am using is based on the VRI
> Tipitaka, which
>> has mudhappasanna.  I am wondering whether anyone could verify for
> me
>> whether the Burmese tipitaka really does have mudha, or if it is a
> mistake
>> in the VRI tipitaka, and whether there are any thoughts on which
> reading
>> should be considered correct.