[Buddha-l] Pudgalavada #2

[L.S. Cousins]

Stephen,

I wrote:
>I wonder whether the name shouldn't rather be Ku"saraajaa, going by the Pali:
>Ja V 312: kusaråjå pana aham eva ahosin
>He is referred to thus throughout the Kusajaataka. But I don't have
>the Mahaavastu to hand.

You responded:

>-----
>In T1505, this would be quite reasonable due to the way the name is 
>transcribed / translated, but in T1506 it definitely has to be 
>something like "Ku'sendra / Ku'senda".. It could just be a variant 
>of the name from some other canonical source.
>
>Best wishes,
>Stephen Hodge

The question that is still not clear to me is whether we are dealing 
with two translations of the same text, as Chau seems to suggest. Or, 
two different texts from different Pudgalavaadin schools and quite 
possibly in different languages. If the last, then one might suspect 
that T1505 was in some form of Prakrit where Ku"saraajaa or similar 
is possible and T1506 in Sanskrit with the (possibly later) form 
Ku"sendra.

Or, do you have any definite evidence to rule out this hypothesis ?

Lance Cousins