Svabodhanam?
Jan Klee
if someone can help me out, with the following:
What does "Svabodhanam"mean?
.
Thank you (in advance)
Jan
.
Phillip Ernest
> 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.
P
Vidhyanath Rao
"Phillip Ernest" <phillip...@utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:ae8f8a0b.03051...@posting.google.com...
>
> Off the top of my head, I'd say bodhanam is from the causative,
Words in -ana always have the root vowel in guna, so bodhana- has no
special connection to causative.
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.
Jan Klee
news:ba80nl$ck4$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> Of course, budh, like awaken, be/become aware etc can easily take on
> special connotations. So without context, it is hard to say how to
> interpret it.
Thank you for your answer.
The context can be found in:
"A Buddhist Bible " edited by Dwight Goddard:
....With the discernment of these grand truths and their realization in life
the Bodhisattva became enlightened; he thus attained Sambodhi and became a
Buddha. Rightly has Sambodhi been called Svabodhanam to emphasise the fact
that it cab be accomplished only by self-help without the extraneous aid of
a teacher or an Isvara. ....
JAN
(hoping for your interpretation)
Phillip Ernest
> Words in -ana always have the root vowel in guna, so bodhana- has no
> special connection to causative.
But surely the fact that a root like budh can only have one form of
the nominal in -ana does not mean that there is no semantic
distinction between a regular nominal bodhana, awakening in the
intransitive sense, and a causative nominal bodhana, awakening in the
transitive sense. Surely the morphological identity conceals two
causative meanings, and budh no less than any other root is capable of
generating the full array of causative forms? I am sure that if I
were not so lazy I could immediately support my argument by reference
to Apte or MMW. Am I wrong?
Phillip
eki
Ernest) wrote:
>"Vidhyanath Rao" <nath...@osu.edu> wrote in message news:<ba80nl$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.
Both intransitive and transitive meaning seem possible according to my
dictionary.
Vidhyanath Rao
"Jan Klee" <jkle...@planet.nl> wrote
in message news:bab6cr$2v0$1...@reader11.wxs.nl...
> Rightly has Sambodhi been called Svabodhanam to
> emphasise the fact that it cab be accomplished only
The points seems to be that plain ``bodhana-'' `awakening' is ambiguous
as to voice (as is buddha etc), and so, sva is added make it clear that
it is not due to an external agency.
Nath
Vidhyanath Rao
"Phillip Ernest" <phillip...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:717c8780.03052...@posting.google.com...
> "Vidhyanath Rao" <nath...@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:<ba80nl$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?
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.]
Nath
Phillip Ernest
> 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'.
Kind regards,
P
xvi000
MWDic.: n. waking , being awake K‚tyĽr. Su˝r.
That's to say, it's a neut. n. meaning "self-waking".
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Phillip Ernest
P
Jan Klee
http://home.planet.nl/~klee0017/Basanta.mp3
As "token" for my appreciation.
Greetings from Holland,
JAN