Abhisambujjhati vs. abhisambojjhati

These are clearly different forms of the same verb that appears in SuttaCentral’s dictionary system with the ‘u’ only. That in itself is not a problem. (Except for the fact that the Pali lookup system fails rather spectacular with ‘o’ forms.)

What is strange is that both ‘o’ and ‘u’ forms can be found in near-parallel .texts in the SN. So we have:

SN 56.5 — Mahāsaṅgīti Tipiṭaka Buddhavasse 2500
yathābhūtaṁ abhisambojjhiṁsu, sabbe te cattāri ariyasaccāni yathābhūtaṁ abhisambojjhiṁsu.
Ye hi keci … yathābhūtaṁ abhisambojjhanti, sabbe te cattāri ariyasaccāni yathābhūtaṁ
abhisambojjhanti. Katamāni … brāhmaṇā vā yathābhūtaṁ abhisambojjhiṁsu …pe…
abhisambojjhissanti …pe… abhisambojjhanti, sabbe te imāni cattāri

SN 56.24 — Mahāsaṅgīti Tipiṭaka Buddhavasse 2500
yathābhūtaṁ abhisambujjhiṁsu, sabbe te cattāri ariyasaccāni yathābhūtaṁ abhisambujjhiṁsu.
Ye hi keci … yathābhūtaṁ abhisambujjhanti, sabbe te cattāri ariyasaccāni yathābhūtaṁ
abhisambujjhanti. Katamāni … sammāsambuddhā yathābhūtaṁ abhisambujjhiṁsu …pe…
abhisambujjhissanti … abhisambujjhanti, sabbe te imāni cattāri

So my question is this. Is this an error that is somehow crept in somewhere along the line, and, if not, is there a known reason for the apparent inconsistency?


1 Like

Well spotted!

Checking into it, the -o- reading is found in the MS edition only in this sutta. The BJT always has -u-.

The PTS edition of 1898 has a note that the Burmese manuscript from includes the -o- reading consistently for this sutta only.

So this is a nice confirmation of the fact that the MS edition inherits the Burmese readings. We know this in general, but it is remarkable how specific it is in this instance.

I don’t know anything about the specific Burmese manuscript cited by Leon Feer, other than that it is held in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris. A quick search of their website didn’t give any results.

1 Like