________________
19
A NOTE ON MAHĀBHĀSYA II 366.26 4.3. Now that it has been established that the sentence anvartham khalv api, etc. of M. II 200. 25-26 is but an additional argument meant to vindicate the preceding 'second attempt' to define the concept of dravya, attention can be focussed for a short while on the preceding passage (quoted above p. 17). What has to be noted first is that in reading it one cannot but recall M. I 7. 21-23 :
athavā nedam eva nityalaksanam dhruvam kūtastham avicāly anapāyopajanavikāry anutpatty avrddhy avyayayogi yat tan nityam iti/ tad api nityam yasmims tattvam na vihanyate / kim punas tattvam / tadbhāvas
tattvam / ākytāv api tattvam na vihanyate //. Which is, by the way, also quoted by Simhasūri (NĀA 21. 22 ff.); yet more important, at least for the question at issue here, is it to remember what has already been observed earlier (see above p. 12), viz. that it is with regard to this passage that Nāgesa (in reprimanding Kaiyața) emphasizes the “Sāmkhyamatānusāritvam ", to use Muni Jambūvijaya's expression.
Indeed, already the verb prādur-bhū points to this direction, though it can admittedly not be regarded as an absolutely unequivocal key word. But we are in this case not at all dependent upon any such indirect evidence or mere conjectures. For, as luck would have it, there are close parallels in Sāmkhya and. Yoga texts themselves that the question of the doctrinal provenance of Patañjali's 'second attempt' can be definitely settled. What I have in view is first of all a verse quoted twice in the Yuktidipikā, viz. 49. 10 f. and 75. 6 f., which runs thus:
jahad dharmântaram pūrvam upādatte yadā param / tattvād apracyuto
dharmi pariņāmaḥ sa ucyate 11. Clearly this is a definition of the term pariņāma, and not dravya, and moreover in it use is made of the terms dharma and dharmin which did certainly not originate in Sāmkhya itself, but were taken over from other schools of thought, probably the Vaiseșika. Nevertheless it is evident that in this verse the same idea is expressed as in the M. passage under discussion; and in spite of the 'modern' terms used the assumption is, no doubt, justified that the idea as
75)
