Re: muddhapasanna

On 14/05/2010 14:41, Ole Holten Pind wrote:

> The term muddhapasanna is a peculiar term. Apart from the Vinaya
> passage mentioned, it is only recorded in post-canonical literature.
> It qualifies a person that is stupid. The first reference known to me
> is Sumangalavilasini vol. 2 p. 360,19-20.
>

I have also Mp II 118; Vibh-a 277 and Vism 129 (mhṭ).

> I see no reason to doubt Oldenbergs ability to read his Sinhalese ms.s
> correcly.
>

He had only one Sinhalese Mss and two Burmese. It is very difficult to
believe that all three read buddha-. So either he did not notice the
variation or perhaps all three read mu(d)dha-. In the latter case we
would be dealing with either a clerical error in Oldenberg's Ms or a
printing error. That is what I think likely. Alternatively he did not
notice the variation. Homer nods. Then either Oldenberg or a Burmese
scribe has misread Burmese 'b' for Burmese 'm'.
>
> The passage mentioned reads buddhappasannaa, qualifying an upaasikaa
> who has fallen in love with the Buddha and invites him to enjoy
> methunadhamma with her. The Burmese tradition did not appreciate the
> traditional reading and its implications and "corrected" it.
>
> Ole Holten Pind
>
This does not make any sense. Do you have any other example where
-ppasanna- means 'fallen in love' ?  There is no suggestion that either
of the two female lay disciples here invite the Buddha to enjoy
methunadhamma with them. In both cases it is an unnamed monk who is
approached. I can see no reason why the tradition would have felt a need
to change the reading buddha- if it had been the original one. Rather
they are described as having stupid faith because they held the view
that methunadhamma is the highest gift.

Lance Cousins