bodhi- correction

[Rolf Heiner Koch]

avitR = Beschuetzer = protector
tanuu = Leib, Koerper = body  class. Skt. also
tree (allegorical for the familiy human beings)
bodhi = sei = be (bedenke uns als Schuetzer =
think of us as protector)
all interpretations are to be find with Grassmann


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: JR Gardner <jgardner at BLUE.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU>
An: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK
<INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
Datum: Mittwoch, 3. Dezember 1997 04:40
Betreff: Re: bodhi- correction


>Sorry, I composed this across two different days
and left out that
>Beschutzer is Geldner's obvious reading for
avitaa'-- hence obfuscating
>my original question for the list as to bodhi.  I
have inserted teh
>necessary correction with "****correction**** to
the original post below.
>Consider me to have rightly flamed myself
herewith.
>
>On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, JR Gardner [**mistakenly**]
wrote:
>
>> I hesitate to enlist help with a passaage so
seemingly straightforward as
>> the following, but it is not easy to take issue
with herr Geldner.  What
>> does anyone suggest for bodhi in RV  5.4.9
(from Van Nooten and Holland,
>> 1994):
>>
>>  asmaa'kam bodhi avitaa' tanuu'naam |
>>
>> cf. Geldner (HOS 1951, III:  7) "sei der
Beschutzer unserer Leiber"-- I'm
>> sure I am missing something obvious . . . but I
have trouble fitting both
>> tanuunaam and bodhi in light of Geldner's
reading.  Muir doesn't treat it,
>> nor does Elizarenkova or Maurer, sadly (as also
with 2.9.2 below).
>>
>> I also don't get Beschutzer (unless via the
tree/der Baum, i.e. that the
>> Buddha sat beneath, but htis feels like a
stretch)
>
>****correction****
>as avitaa' with bodhi based upon what I get
>****end correction****
>
>> from Bothlingk (1879, Vol IV, p. 234), Mylius
(1975: 330), Suryakanta
>> (1981: 492), Mayrhoffer (1963, II: 449), or
Grassman (1996: 907) for
>> bodhi.
>>
>> Similarly, cf. 2.9.2c-d (from Van Nooten &
Holland 1994):
>>
>> a'gne toka'sya nas ta'ne tanuu'naam |
>> a'prayuchan dii'diyad bodhi gopaa'H
>>
>> With Geldner (HOS #33, 1951: 284) where we
don't have avitaa' and I am
>still not getting bodhi clearly:
>>
>> "O Agni, sei du mit deinem Lichte der
unablassige Schutzer zer Fortdauer
>> unseres Samens, unserer eingenen Personen!"
>>
>> While I am willingly anxious to solve this
question, even at the expense
>> of being wrong, it would seem that the role of
Agni as garbha, et al in
>> plants and living things (RV 2.1.1; 14; 3.1.13;
as generator or engenderer
>> 3.2.10; 7.5.7; 3.6.2; 5; 6.8.3; 7.5.4 [cf. also
Norman Brown, JAOS 51,
>> 1931, 108-118, Sources and Nature of puruSa in
the PuruSasuukta]), would
>> attest to the more standard renderings of
awaken or--even--quicken.
>>
>> While discussion is welcome, for the sake of
the list, and its recent
>> meta-debates, at this point, I am asking about
translation moreso than
>> etymologies of -budh.
>>
>> tyia
>>
>> jrg
>>
>>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
>> John Robert Gardner      Obermann Center
>> School of Religion         for Advanced Studies
>> University of Iowa       University of Iowa
>> 319-335-2164             319-335-4034
>> http://vedavid.org
http://www.uiowa.edu/~obermann/
>>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
>> It is ludicrous to consider language as
anything other
>> than that of which it is the transformation.
>>
>