________________
August, 1886.)
NOTES ON THE MAHABHASHYA,
231
would assign the verses to Katyayana, must | Vårt. 26 on P. I. 4, 1; or that the same certainly admit that here again he himself scholar, who in a prose Vårttika in Vol. II. would have completely and intentionally ignored p. 354 has taught us to form
with those verses in his prose statements.
the suffix 3, would in a verse in Vol. II. To adduce more direct proof, I would cer- p. 378 have derived the same word by means tainly deny that verses like those in Vol. I. of the suffix ; that in Vol. II, p. 301 he p, 33, Tada PTTGT, and p. 145, even though would have formed urofa with the suffix they have been fully explained by Patanjali, , and on p. 310 with stat; 62 and are on can by any possibility be ascribed to Katyayana. p. 236 with , and on p. 311 with 34. Those and similar verses stand in no connection Besides, I consider it altogether unlikely whatever with preceding or following Vårtti- that Katyayana would, for no apparent kas, and by themselves they are unintelligible. reason, have used the term for in They receive a meaning only when taken as the verses in Vol. II. pp. 284, 378, and 425, part of the discussions that have been started or that he would have employed for TKTE by Patañjali, and their presence cannot be the term g" in the verses in Vol. III. pp. 229, accounted for unless we assume that they have 247, and, 318, when he has never employed those been borrowed by Patañjali from elsewhere. terms in his prose Värttikas. It is also certain Nor can we assign to Katyayana verges like that a verse like that on P. V.2, 39, which those on P. I. 1, 19 or P. VI. 4, 74; for what speaks of a suffix TTG cannot have proceeded we learn from the former is really nothing from a scholar who elsewhere accepta Paņi. but what Katyayana has already told us in his ni's views of the formation of the words , Vårt. 5 on P. I. 1, 11, and the views propounded TETT etc.; the more so, when the concluding in the verses on P. VI. 4, 74 are contrary, portion of that verse is distinctly directed I should perhaps say, intentionally opposed, - against the prose Várttika of that scholar on to statements contained in the prose Värttikas P. V. 2, 37. I might go on quoting other on P. I. 1, 21; VI. 1, 95; and elsewhere.18 verses which are directed against the prose Similarly, it would be wrong to ascribe to Värttikas, others that try to improve on them, Katyayana verses like those in Vol. I. p. 36 and again others intended to explain them ;16 and Vol. III. p. 466; for the former of these but will conclude these arguments by statverses raises a question which has been disposed ing that in three instances (in Vol. I. p. 444, of by Kåtyâyana in the first Ahnika, and and Vol. II. pp. 86 and 117) Patañjali has the latter merely repeats the substance of distinctly intimated that the verses on which that scholar's Värttikas on the first Sivasitra. he happens to comment, are not by the author Again, it is impossible to admit that KatyAyana of the prose Várttikas," and that Katyøyana would in Vol. II. p. 267 seriously have dis- himself and his Várttika are mentioned in the cussed a question which he had settled in his verses explained in Vol. II. pp. 121 and 176."
13 The verses on P. VI. 4, 74, try to show that Panini's rule VI. 4, 72 may be dispensed with, which is not the opinion of Katyayang, they moreover suggest new rule of which they maintain that it will render K&tyyana's Vårttiks on P. VI. 1, 95 superfluong. In note 8 I have shown that Patañjali does not regard these versos A his own; the verses themselves prove, that they are not Khty&yana's.
It is really diffioult to say whether this term should be read gor . The authority of the MSS. is decidedly in favour of reading it, and I have read it mainly bocatise this gives a correct verse in Vol. III. 818, 1. 5. Perhaps I have attached too much importance to the metre, which, after all, is violated in many versos in the MahAbhashya. In the MSS. of the Jainindra grimmar, too, the term is read both g and .
Kalyats on P. V. 2, 89: grafara la
PICTI 9 Mar : (P.VI.8, 91) इत्यात्वं विहितम् | पूर्वाचार्यास्तु डावतुं विदधिरे ।.
Compare the verses in Vol. II. pp. 132, 210, Vol. III. p. 182; in Vol II. p. 214, and Vol. III. p. 218; and the
portions of versos introduced, after a prose Virttika, by areenager in Vol. II. pp. 29, 899, and Vol. II. p. 352; and, as an explanatory vérse, the verse in Vol. II. p. 72.
11 In the three instances given above Patañjali intro. duces verses, which are explained by him, by the words ay TE, after prose Verttikas. By the same phrase he introduces, after prose Varttikas, a verse on which he does not comment, in Vol. II. p. 38. By BTT BE he introduces verses, after other verses or after remarks of his own, in Vol. I. pp. 13, 63, 296, 335; Vol. II, pp. 87 217, 925; and Vol. III. p. 410. After a verse he introduces another verse by एष एवार्थः। अपर आह in Vol. I. p. 33; and by gegart: alone in Vol. I. p. 484 and Vol. III. p. 410. On Vol. I. p. 484 Ngôjibhatta is in doubt as to whether the verse so introduced is by Patanjali or by another. We should have expected to find the words ye garet: before the second verse in Vol. I. p. 500.
* Besides, the Bhagavan Katyab is mentioned in 80-called summary verse in Vol. II. p. 97.
