Re: mudhappasanna

My reason for asking, btw, is I've received a request to change the text
included in the DPR, first to buddha-, now to muddha (after I explained off
the idea of using buddha-).  This is something I'd never think of doing
unless I was 100% sure there was a typo, but he is a bit insistent, so I
thought it wouldn't hurt to elaborate on my reasoning in this case.

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Noah Yuttadhammo <yuttadhammo@...>wrote:

> 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]