________________
13
62)
A NOTE ON MAHĀBHĀŞYA II 366.26 ......tasmād asti rūpāśrayo dravyam / etac ca pākajarūpādyutpattau ye dravyavināśam necchanti tanmatena dravyapratyabhijñāśrayeņoktam / ye tu pākajarūpādyutpattau pūrvadravyavināśam apūrvadravyārambham căbhyupagacchanti tanmatena dravyabhede 'pi jāter ekatvāj jātipratyabhi
jñāśrayeņoktam / etc. 2. One cannot but emphatically agree with Nāgesa on this point:
Kaiyața is, as we shall see later, definitely on the wrong track. 3. It does not suffice to state that Nāgeśa differs from Kaiyața and simply to report his own opinion. For Nāgesa does not at all confine himself to merely contending that Kaiyaţa is wrong, but he adduces two different, though ultimately related, reasons which-once more-testify not only to his critical acumen, but also and above all to his remarkable capacities in terms of philological method and its application in interpreting Patañjali's work. The first argument consists in pointing out · that Kaiyața's interpretation of M. II 366. 23-25 contradicts what is said by Patañjali on Pāṇ. 4. 1. 3, viz. in M. II 198. 4 (see above p. 10) and II 200. 13 f. (see above p. 11); and in this case, too, Nāgeśa is quite right; for the agreement between the passages in these two discussions in terms of their doctrinal affinity is, as we have already seen, as plain as it can be, so that it can easily be recognized even without the help of Nāgesa who was on his part well aware of this relationship. His second argument shows, if I am not mistaken with regard to the meaning of nirdalat, and the implications of this argument of his, that Nāgesa starts from the assumption that the two questions of M. II 366. 14 make sense only if they are asked by a participant of the discussion who is of the opinion that on the basis of the 'Sāmkhya' definition of dravya (as taught under Pān. 4. 1. 3) it is not possible to account for what is said in vartt. 5 on Pāņ. 5. 1. 119. For according to Kātyāyana's statement (M. II 366. 10: siddham tu yasya gunasya bhāvād dravye sabdaniveśas tadabhidhāne tvatalau) the suffixes -tva and -tā are added after a base which is a dravya-vācaka to denote a guna; and the 'Sāmkhya' definition of dravya, so one might think, implies that there is
