--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The compound of this month (prayatna-shaithilya) "comes"
> from YS II 47:
>
> prayatnashaithilyaanantasamaapattibhyaam
>
> That suutra as a whole is a dvandva of two components,
> which both seem to be tatpuruSa-samaasa's ("that [= his]-man
-compounds"):
>
> prayatna-shaithilya and ananta-samaapatti
>
> Well, tat-puruSa's are dependent compounds
>
> "in which the prior member is a substantive word [...]
> standing to the other member in the relation of
> a case dependent on it." (Whitney).
>
> The relation is usually *possessive*:
> 'tat-puruSa' itself is an example of, well, tatpuruSa-samaasa's,
> and actually means '*his* man' ('puruSa' here translated to 'man'),
> *not* 'that man', although there is nothing in 'tat' to suggest
> it should be treated, in this case, as a possessive.
>
> What tells us the whole suutra is a dvandva, is the
> instrumental/dative/ablative [sic!] *dual* (that
> is, *not* singular or plural) ending -bhyaam.
>
> So, in this suutra, the compound 'prayatna-shaithilya'
> [shite (rhymes with 'white')-hill-yah] is probably
> to be treated as an instrumental case form, corresponding
> the instrumental singular 'shaithilyena', perhaps best
> translated to English using the preposition 'by':
>
> '(by) relaxation (shaithilya) of effort (prayatna)'.
>
> That suutra in fact tells us what is perhaps the
> most important thing in "doing" TM, don't it?
Yeah, sure looks that way, a description of Dharana?
