"Jan Klee" <jklee2...@planet.nl> wrote in message <news:b9t0r7$fp8$1@reader08.wxs.nl>... > I'm not so familiar with Sanskrit, and wondering > if someone can help me out, with the following:
> What does "Svabodhanam"mean?
Off the top of my head, I'd say bodhanam is from the causative, so 'awakening' in the active sense, so svabodhanam is 'waking oneself up, self-awakening'. But no doubt it may have special technical senses. Everyone out there correct me if I'm wrong.
> Of course, budh, like awaken, be/become aware etc can easily take on > special connotations. So without context, it is hard to say how to > interpret it.
Thank you for your answer.
The context can be found in:
"A Buddhist Bible " edited by Dwight Goddard:
....With the discernment of these grand truths and their realization in life the Bodhisattva became enlightened; he thus attained Sambodhi and became a Buddha. Rightly has Sambodhi been called Svabodhanam to emphasise the fact that it cab be accomplished only by self-help without the extraneous aid of a teacher or an Isvara. ....
"Vidhyanath Rao" <nathr...@osu.edu> wrote in message <news:ba80nl$ck4$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>... > Words in -ana always have the root vowel in guna, so bodhana- has no > special connection to causative.
But surely the fact that a root like budh can only have one form of the nominal in -ana does not mean that there is no semantic distinction between a regular nominal bodhana, awakening in the intransitive sense, and a causative nominal bodhana, awakening in the transitive sense. Surely the morphological identity conceals two causative meanings, and budh no less than any other root is capable of generating the full array of causative forms? I am sure that if I were not so lazy I could immediately support my argument by reference to Apte or MMW. Am I wrong?
>> Words in -ana always have the root vowel in guna, so bodhana- has no >> special connection to causative.
>But surely the fact that a root like budh can only have one form of >the nominal in -ana does not mean that there is no semantic >distinction between a regular nominal bodhana, awakening in the >intransitive sense, and a causative nominal bodhana, awakening in the >transitive sense.
Both intransitive and transitive meaning seem possible according to my dictionary.
> Rightly has Sambodhi been called Svabodhanam to > emphasise the fact that it cab be accomplished only > by self-help ...
The points seems to be that plain ``bodhana-'' `awakening' is ambiguous as to voice (as is buddha etc), and so, sva is added make it clear that it is not due to an external agency.
> > Words in -ana always have the root vowel in guna, so bodhana- has no > > special connection to causative.
> But surely the fact that a root like budh can only have one form of > the nominal in -ana does not mean that there is no semantic > distinction between a regular nominal bodhana, awakening in the > intransitive sense, and a causative nominal bodhana, awakening in the > transitive sense. Surely the morphological identity conceals two > causative meanings, and budh no less than any other root is capable of > generating the full array of causative forms?
Yes. But the semantic distinction can be made only by knowing the full context. In contrast, bodhayati can only mean `awaken someone', while budhyati can only mean `is awake'. [Complicating things, there are also bodhati and bodhate.]
"Vidhyanath Rao" <nathr...@osu.edu> wrote in message <news:baindk$67l$4@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>... > Yes. But the semantic distinction can be made only by knowing the full > context. In contrast, bodhayati can only mean `awaken someone', while > budhyati can only mean `is awake'. [Complicating things, there are also > bodhati and bodhate.]
Yes. svabodhanam seemed most naturally to suggest the reflexive 'awakening oneself'.
