[Buddha-l] ;sa;svat. Was Eternalism

[Jayarava]

I'm sending this for Ashok as he is having trouble posting it.

From: Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.aklujkar at ubc.ca>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:00:24 -0700
To: Buddhist discussion forum <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
Conversation: ;sa;svat. Was [Buddha-l] Eternalism
Subject: Re: ;sa;svat. Was [Buddha-l] Eternalism


It seems that there was a verbal nominal derivative ;sa;s (derivable from a verbal root ;sa;s by adding a zero suffix, like recent English "read" from the verbal root "read" in such sentences as "It is a good read") in Vedic Sanskrit.

A comparative degree of this Vedic nominal can be said to exist in the Vedic adjective ;sa;siiyas (on the pattern of lagh(u) --> laghiiyas, gur(u) --> gariiyas etc.). Contextually, ;sa;siiyas means 'more numerous, oftener.'

The meaning of ;sa;s, therefore could have been 'one which renews itself, one which recurs/reappears,'  leading to the meaning 'one which persists, one which is indestructible, eternal.'

Mayrhofer (Kurzgefasstes etymologishes Woerterbuch des Altindischen, part 3, p. 317-318), from whom I have paraphrased the preceding information, does not explain how exactly a possessive -vat (cf. his use of ;sa;svaan as the entry title) added to an adjective would work. Perhaps he presupposes that an abstract or event/feature meaning like 'recurrence' underlies the nominal ;sa;s. However, he generally seems to be thinking along the right lines.

The further derivations ;saa;svata and ;saa;svatika meaning 'permanent, eternal' from ;sa;svat are linguistically not a problem.

ashok aklujkar