--- In [email protected], "shukra69" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I can't translate but I have read that dharma-megha means that the
> yogi also rains dharma onto the surrounding society, source was
Julian Lee
>
> --- In [email protected], cardemaister <no_reply@>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > What does "dharma-megha-samaadhi" mean?
> > In his commentary on YS IV, Bhojadeva sez
> > (according to some Indian site, whose
> > URL we have lost, after downloading the
> > devanaagarii PDF, which seems to contain
> > some typos):
> >
> > prasaMkhyaanaM yaavataaM tattvaanaaM yathaakramaM
> > vyavasthitaanaaM parasparavilakSaNasvaruupavibhaavanaM
> > tasminsatyapyakusiidasya phalamalipsoH pratyayaantaraaNaam-
> > anudayaatsarvaprakaaravivekhyaateH parisheSaaddharmameghaH
> > samaadhirbhavati |*** prakRSTam ashuklakRSNaM dharmaM parama-
> > puruSa-artha-saadhakaM mehati siñcatiiti dharmameghaH ***|
The last sentence above seems to be some kind of explanation
why that particular form, or whatever, of samaadhi is
called 'dharma-megha'.
Let's start from the main verbs, which seem to be 'mih'
(?present tense indicative 3. person singular 'mehati')...
2 mih 1 cl. 1. P. (Dha1tup. xxiii , 23) %{***me4hati***} (ep. also
A1. %{-te} , p. %{-meghamAna} RV. ; pf. %{mimeha} Gr. ; aor. %
{amikSat} S3Br. ; fut. %{meDhA} Gr. , %{mekSya4ti} AV. ; inf. %
{mihe4} RV.) , to void or pass urine , make water upon (loc. or
acc.) or towards (acc.) RV. &c. &c. ; to emit seminal fluid BhP. ; (%
{mi4miDDhi}) = %{yAcJA-karman} Naigh. iii , 19: Caus. %{mehayati}
(aor. %{amImihat} Gr.) to cause to make water RV.: Desid. %
{mimikSati} see 1. %{mikS}: Intens. %{me4mihat} see %{ni-mih}. [Cf.
Gk. $ , Lat. &248141[818 ,2] {mingere} , {mejere} ; Slav. {migla} ;
Lith. {me34z3} , Angl. Sax. {mi7gan} ; Germ. {Mist}.]
... and 'sic'
(?present tense indicative 3. person singular 'siñcati', in
HK siJca4ti).
sic 1 cl. 6. P. A1. (Dha1tup. xxviii , 140) %{***siJca4ti***} , %{-
te} (once in RV. x , 96 , 1 , %{se4cate} pf. %{siSeca} , %{siSice}
[in RV. also %{sisicuH} , %{sisice}] ; aor. %{asicat} , %{-cata}
[Gr. also %{asikta}] ; Subj. %{sicAmahe} RV. ; Prec. %{sicyAt} Br. ;
fut. %{sekSyati} , %{-te} ib. &c. ; inf. %{sektum} MBh. %{sektavai}
Br. ; ind. p. %{siktvA} ib. ; %{-si4cya} AV. ; %{-secam} or %{-
sekam} , (Gr2S3rS.) , to pour out , discharge , emit , shed , infuse
or pour into or on (loc.) RV. &c.&c. ; to emit semen , impregnate
RV. AV. Br. Mn. ; to scatter in small drops , sprinkle , besprinkle
or moisten with (instr.) RV. &c. &c. ; to dip , soak , steep Bhpr. ;
to cast or form anything out of molten metal &c. (2 acc.) RV. AV.
AitBr.: Pass. %{sicyate} (ep. also %{-ti} ; aor. %{aseci}) , to be
poured out or sprinkled RV. &c. &c.: Caus. %{secayati} , %{-te} (ep.
also %{siJcayati} ; aor. %{asISicat} or %{asIsicat}) , to cause to
pour out &c. ; to sprinkle , water (plants &c.) MBh. Ka1v. &c.:
Desid. %{siSikSati} or %{sisikSati} ; %{-te} Gr. (cf. %{sisikSA}):
Intens. %{sesicyate} , %{sesekti}. [Cf. Zd. {hincaiti} ; Gk. $ [?] ;
Angl.Sax. {seo4n} ; Germ. &366885[1214 ,1] {seihen} , {seichen}.]
Any suggestions for the most suitable meaning as to the Bhoja-vRtti
are welcome! ;)
FWIW, it seems a bit weird that a clause has two predicate verbs
(mehati, siñcati), but the only way I can "de-sandhi" 'siñcatiiti'
is 'siñcati + iti'. In principle it could also "of course" be
sandhi for 'siñcatii + iti', but that doesn't seem to be
a valid form from 'mih'.
>From the form 'meghamaana' (present participle?) under 'mih'
we can see that the noun 'megha' is also prolly derived
from the root 'mih'.
The phrase beginning with 'prakRSTam' and ending with 'saadhakam'
seems to be the direct object of that clause, provided we
assume that 'saadhaka' refers to a person, and thus is in accusative
singular, because nominative singular would be 'saadhakaH'.
But according to M-W, 'saadhaka' can also be a neuter noun,
in which case 'saadhakam' could be nominative *or* accusative
singular, because in Sanskrit as in Latin, nouns, whose nominative
and accusative are identical in form, are called neuter gender words.
But let's "bravely" assume that 'saadhaka' above refers to
a person, and thus is in accusative case, and by that token
the object of that sentence. That leaves 'dharma-meghaH' the
only possible subject for that sentence despite the fact
that it's preceded by 'iti' which would make it simultaneously
some kind of apposition, or stuff.
