________________
52)
53)
A NOTE ON MAHĀBHĀSYA II 366.26 thus (II 200. 12-15):
kasya tävad bhavān ekam gunam nyāyyam manyate stritvam nāma / dravyasya / dravye ca bhavataḥ kaḥ sampratyayah / yadi tāvad gunasamudāyo dravyam / kā gatir ya ete bhāvāḥ kydabhihitās taddhitābhihitāś ca
cikirşā goteti/. I must confess that I fail to understand why Seyfort Ruegg with reference to the phrase guṇasamudāyo dravyam speaks of “ cette définition du substantiť”; but what he says subsequently, viz. that it “est, il est vrai, introduite comme l'opinion d'un autre ", is, no doubt, correct. Yet, I don't think that it is of particular importance, at least for the problem at issue here, to which of the participants of the discussion this or that statement belongs. For, what this passage is evidently about is the question of the view of an "individual material thing" (dravya) one of the participants holds, and the critical remark that if this participant accepts the definition guṇasamudāyo dravyam, there arise certain difficulties—and they are conveniently explained by Nāgesa. And again both Kaiyața and Nāgeśa are to all appearances unanimously of the opinion that this is a definition of the adherents of Sāmkhya. For Kaiyata e.g. explains gunasamudāyaḥ by stating (IV 30 a 8-9): rūpādisamniveśamātram ity arthah.
There can indeed be hardly any doubt that gunasamudāyo dravyam is but another formulation of gunasamdrāvo dravyam, or vice versa, and that the expressions samudāya and sandrāva are hence considered here to be practically synonymous. Yet, it should not be overlooked that the latter expression is used in the discussion of Pān. 5. 1. 119 in a particular context, i.e. that the definition is introduced there by the remark (M. II 366. 25) anvartham khalv api nirvacanam, whereas in M. 200. 11 ff. the question of the derivation of the term dravya-and of defining dravya by pointing out its etymology-is not at issue. The assumption which therefore suggests itself is that the 'normal'expression is samudāya; and this is strikingly confirmed by the fact that Patañjali in all other instances (viz. I 411. 15 and II 120. 11) uses the term gunasamudāya, and not gunasandrāva.
The result of the foregoing observations and considerations is that both