________________
A NOTE ON MAHABHAṢYA II 366.26
3) Panini. A Survey of Research. The Hague-Paris 1976, pp. 256-259. For what I looked, in vain however, was a reference to G. Oberhammer's review article in: OLZ LIX (1964), 16 ff. 4) Viz. "Das Eindringen der Sprachtheorie in die indischen philosophischen Systeme" in: Indologen-Tagung 1959, Verhandlungen, Göttingen 1960, pp. 239-243 (-Kleine Schriften, hrg. von G. Oberhammer und E. Steinkellner, Wiesbaden 1982, pp. 279-283) and "Sprachtheorie und Philosophie im Mahābhāṣya des Patañjali" in: WZKSO 4 (1960), pp. 92-118(-Kleine Schriften, pp. 284-310).
27
5) Cf. Cardona, o. c. (fn. 3), p. 59.
6) Cf. my article "Paralipomena zum Sarvasarvätmakatvaväda (I). Mahābhāṣya zu Pän. 4. 3. 155 und seine einheimischen Erklärer" in: WZKS 26 (1982), p. 164 ff.
7) Cf. also below p. 13.
8) I use, of course, Muni Jambūvijaya's edition, Bhavnagar 1966. I quote the text always as
it is printed in this edition, but sometimes I add in parentheses punctuation marks in order
to facilitate the readers' understanding.
9) O. c., pp. 23-25.
10) The first one I shall study in a monograph which is still in preparation.
11) Cf. also the long fn. 1 on p. 268 of the edition in which the editor quotes relevant passages from various commentaries on Samkhyakärikā 22. Nevertheless I do not understand what is meant by rupadi sṛṣṭau, etc.
12) For the use of the instrumental Muni Jambūvijaya here refers to Pap. 2. 3. 21: itthambhutalakṣaṇe.
13) As pravṛtti is used here in the sense of "coming into existence [by a process of parinama]" (cf.fn. 20 below) one would rather expect the reading ekagunāt pra°; cf. also ekasmāt kāranad bhavat in the next but one sentence.
14) The editor adds here square brackets, but leaves the space in between empty as neither in the Paniniyadhätupäțha nor in the Haimadhätupatha an exact equivalent is found (cf. his fn. 3 on p. 208). My own endeavours to identify this quotation were equally futile. Nevertheless what Simhasüri aims at here is clear, viz. to adduce a grammatical authority for his interpretation of guna as "number".
15) Muni Jambüvijaya wonders (fn. 5 on p. 268) whether one should read here tvanmatavirodhat which would in fact be better. But the reading avirodhāt is also acceptable if the expression is taken to mean: "because [this alone] does not stand in contradiction to your [general] position".
16) Note that according to the editor (fn. 6 on p. 268) all the MSS. read gunakāśam. I do not quite understand why he decided in favour of the emendation guṇākāśam and confined himself to printing out in this footnote that the reading of the MSS. might go back to 'gunam akāśam which is clearly to be preferred if one does not want to go even a step further and decide in favour of gunad ākāśam (cf. fn. 15).
17) Cf. also Frauwallner, Geschichte der indischen Philosophie, I. Bd., Salzburg 1953, p. 355 ff. 18) Ed. R. C. Pandeya, Delhi 1967, p. 118 1. 14 ff.
19) He is, no doubt, trustworthy in this regard, too; for, this tenet is evidently based on the Samkhya conception of primary matter as sattvarajastamoma y a (cf. fn. 25).