________________
A. WEZLER “ ......But [this] reproach is not valid for us because what we teach is that a particular manifest thing originates as the accumulation of movements and qualities on account of the cause and nothing but the cause having coagulated or having assumed another shape". Although the key word dravya does not occur here and besides guna the term kriyā is also used (evidently because it has to take into account, at least argumenti causa, the tenets of the Vaiseșika), it is as plain as it can be that virtually the same concept of individual material things is testified to in this passage, for the replacement of samudāya by praciti is hardly of any importance.
81)
Matilal is, however, quite right in remarking, though on what he wrongly takes to be Patañjali's “third attempt”, that “the implication is that the integrated whole or the 'bundle' should be conceived as different from the constituent parts". For, this is indeed the pratijñā Patañjali wants to prove in view of what is said in vārtt. 5 on Pāṇ. 5. 1. 119 (cf. M. II 200. 15 f. and 18). But I don't think that this is only “implied "; it is rather clearly expressed not only in M. II 200. 23-25, but also by the subsequent etymologizing definition, if only this latter is recognized to be but a corroborative statement and is interpreted accordingly. As Patañjali makes use here of a Sāmkhya view in order to vindicate-once more, though by another argument--the assertion that dravya is something different from (the) guņas, it can be safely taken for granted that this is not merely in keeping with the corresponding Sāmkhya concept, but is rather a faithful rendering of it, especially because this conclusion is confirmed also by the testimony of Mallavādin and Simhasūri (see above p. 9) as well as by that of the Yuktidīpikā.
If we now take a look at this Sāmkhya concept, and definition, of dravya itself, we cannot but feel some hesitation in assuming that the term dravya as such is also of Sāmkhya origin. It seems rather that it was coined in or introduced by other circles and became so important an element of philosophical terminology that the adherents of Sāmkhya were forced not only to take
