________________
A. WEZLER discussions in the M., i.e. that of Pāṇ. 4. 1. 3 and that of Pāṇ. 5. 1. 119, are thematically connected among other things by the common reference to a definition of dravya which according to the commentators belongs to Sāmkhya.
58)
3.2. Returning now to the M. on Pāņ. 5. 1. 119 let us first take a look at Matilal's analysis of this discussion. Matilal calls attention among other things to the fact that “Nāgeśa is critical of Kaiyata's explanation of the Mahābhāsya passage under Pāṇini's rule 5. 1. 119 and says that Kaiyața uses the Vaiseșika notion of substance to explain Patañjali: Nāgesa, on the other hand, thinks that the Sāmkhya-Yoga notion of substance is much closer to the grammarians' notion of substance".
It is evidently the following passage of the Uddyota Matilal has in view here (IV 299 a 15-17):
Kaiyatas tu vaiseșikādinayānusāreņa bhāșyam vyācakṣāṇaḥ katham 'striyām' [Pān. 4. 1. 3] iti sūtrasthabhāşyeņa na virudhyata iti cintyam ; katham ca 'kim punar dravyam, ke guņāņ' [M. II 366. 14, i. e. on Pān.
5. 1. 119] iti praśnasya na nirdalateti ca cintyam /. Yet, this forms part of Nāgeśa's explanation of M. II 366. 23-25 (quoted below p. 17), that is to say, of a section which is taken by Matilal to be “ Patañjali's second attempt to define substance", whereas the immediately following passage (II 366. 25-26), viz. anvartham khalv api nirvacanam / gunasamdrāvo dravyam /, is regarded by him as "the third attempt of Patañjali to define substance”, and, to be sure, it is this latter attempt to which Matilal refers when reporting Nāgesa's critical rebuke of Kaiyața and when remarking that “there is a striking similarity between Patañjali's definition of substance and the Sāmkhya-Yoga idea of substance". Thus one is rather confused and cannot hence but deem it necessary to reconsider the relevant passages of the original texts. This experiment' yields, so it seems to me, among others the following results:
1. What has prompted Nāgesa to censure Kaiyaţa was evidently the
following passage in the latter's comment on M. II 366. 23-25 (IV 299 a 3 ff.):
