Sorry, my bad.
As for bodhicittotpāda, I found only one study that talked about it. There is this study “Indian Altruism: A Study of the Terms bodhicitta and cittotpada” where its author, Gareth Sparham, said that the origin of cittotpada is to be found in a later part of Arya-Jasta-sahasrika-Prajna-paramita text (he referred to this as “A” or “the Origin-Passage”). He further said that:
Based on the Origin-Passage, cittotpada was originally an attitude, constucted out of the willful manipulation of ideas or imagination, that welled up within the person banishing negativism and depression and inspiring further effort. In the earliest formulation of cittotpada this uplifting of the heart was to be caused by thinking about living beings in a certain fashion: (a) imagining them to be relatives and (b) reflecting on the sameness of them and oneself. Such thoughts or ideas were to make bearable the difficult work of a bodhisattva. Although altruistic sentiments are clearly identifiable in the Origin-Passage there is no unequivocal altruistic message, in the sense of an exhortation urging the bodhisattva to make work for others his primary motivation.
The author also talked about bodhicitta and cittotpada:
The first part of the compound bodhi-citta (synonymous with bodhi-sattva in the early PP [Prajnaparamita] sutras?) should be understood not as referring to a for-others state of enlightenment (a sambhoga-kaya) but to the the Prajna-paramita herself, beyond all conceptualization and absorbed indivisibly with the ultimate. Rather than a dative tatpurusa, the compound is better construed as a curious Buddhist sort of bahuvrihi meaning (one whose) fundamental state of being or mind is perfect wisdom, i.e., the ultimate. It is a curious compound because the Buddhist axiom which denies the existence of a person beyond the five constituent-aggregates (skandha) leaves both compounds without a clearly identifiable noun to qualify.
The cittotpada set forth in the Origin-Passage cannot, then, be equated with bodhicitta (or bodhisattva) nor can it be thought of as the outcome of a systematic understanding. Rather it was a notion which would itself contribute, as an integral part of a revealed text requiring explanation, to the development of Mahayana scholasticism’s systematic understanding of two truths. The early notion of cittotpada would be transformed, under the influence of later systematization associated paticularly with Madhyamikas, into the conventional or surface level (samvrtya) bodhi-cittotpada, i.e., one concerned with conventional realities such as the needs of other living beings and the attainment of enlightenment. This would be unlike the ultimate bodhi-cittotpada which was none other than the original bodhicitta (i.e., the non-dual liberating vision and ultimate reality called Prajna-paramita) changed insofar as it was now a part of an edifice of scholastic thought.
This explanation of the terms has the great benefit of explaining what are, otherwise, confusing usages of bodhicitta, cittotpada and bodhi-cittotpada. The two former terms were originally different in meaning. Later, however, bodhicitta became even more popular, as a shortened form of bodhi-cittotpada, than the original cittotpada itself and it was used with this secondary sense by later writers in contexts where it is historically inappropriate to do so.
It seems to me even cittotpada by itself has a somewhat different meaning in later periods of Buddhism. In early Buddhism, cittotpāda is equivalent to cittuppāda (rise of a thought) in Pali; it occurs in MN 8 and its parallel in MA 91 where MA 91’s Indian original is translated as “發心”. In both of this versions, this word is used in the context of how even just giving rise to or the arousal of wholesome thinking is of much benefit. But by itself, it simply means rise of a thought.
This is one of the things that has been bugging me. If the occurrence of bodhicittotpāda was indeed because of Ven Guṇabhadra’s affiliation of Mahayana Buddhism, then why is it that it occurs only in SA 659 and not other texts of the same collection? It is a possibility, but I’m not sure.
In fact this really strange situation can be compared with the sole occurrence of “Dhammakaya” in Pali Nikayas (DN 27) and “法身” in T 1 (DA 2). In the context of those mentioned two early Buddhist texts, “Dhammakaya (法身)” has a quite different meaning from the one that’s understood in later Buddhisms. In Exploring Dharmakāya in EBTs and Early Sectarian Buddhism - #4 by thenoble, there was a person who asked Ven Sujato whether the occurrence of “Dhammakaya (法身)” in EBTs might be a result of later addition or the term was actually early but it was misunderstood by Buddhists of later periods. This is Ven Sujato’s answer:
I think it’s the latter. It’s quite normal in sacred scripture for words that to be used in a simple, colloquial way, and then to have all sorts of extra significance read into them by later generations. In fact, this is so prevalent that I made it into one of the foundational guidelines of my translation: the principle of least meaning. When faced with two or more options in translating, choose the one that conveys the least significance, treating the passage in the most everyday, obvious sense.
This is why I think there is also a possibility that “發菩提心” or “初發菩提心” in SA 659 might be early and had a different meaning from how they were understood in later times. If Ven Analayo continues his translation of T 99, I wonder how he will translate SA 659.
Ven Sujato’s comment about choosing words that convey the least significance reminds me of cdpatton’s comment about his own approach of translating Chinese Buddhist texts: