Re: mudhappasanna

Thanks Jim, Lance,

The commentary doesn't seem to have anything on this word, but I agree the
context is pretty clear.  What I really was hoping is whether someone could
confirm that the Burmese Tipitaka (something other than the CSCD) does have
the reading of mudha-, though it does seem likely that that is the case,
given the mention of a variation (muddha) in the CSCD.

Yuttadhammo

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:57 PM, L.S. Cousins <selwyn@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> 
>


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