________________
A. WEZLER
ihre Probleme" in : ZDMG 81 (1927), pp. 99-151 (see p. 146) - Kleine Schriften, hrg. von F. Wilhelm, Wiesbaden 1983, pp. 220-272 (see p. 267)) can be accepted. The latter can easily be misunderstood, and the former two are apparently due to a misconstruction of the sentence styāyaty asyam garbha(h) (M. II 198. 3); this sentence which is to illustrate the preceding statement adhikaranasadhana loke stri may indeed create in a Western reader's mind the idea that what is referred to is the growth of the foetus, yet Kaiyata and Nägeśa clearly are of different opinion and their explanations can hardly be put aside. The former says (Pradīpa IV 22 b 27-30) : st ya yaty a sya m iti / samghätarupam prapnotity arthah / ... samstyanam iti / tirobhāvah, pravrttir ávirbhāvah, śāmyavastha sthitih, etaś cavasthah sabdagocara evety avaseyam //, and the latter adds the remark (Uddyota IV 23 a 1-2): samghatara pam iti / garbhapadena tatkaranam śukraśonitam ucyate /. Cf. also Nägesa's explanations of M. I 245. 27 f. (Uddyota II 98 a 22-24): garbhaḥ śukram styāyati bonitena sanghtbhavatity arthah/ sa te śukram tyajati yonirūpa adhāre / styānam apacayah / pravrttir vrddhih //. What is meant by samstyana is hence just the opposite of 'growth', and styäyаty asyām garbhah does not refer to the growth of the foetus (though both, Kaiyata as well as Nāgesa, 'would not have denied that it grows), but to the "coagulation" of the father's sperm and the mother's "blood ", i.e. to what we would call the act of fertilization. Cf. also K. A. Subrahmania Iyer's article "The Vaiyakarana Conception of 'Gender'" in: Bhāratakaumudi (Studies in Indology
in honour of Dr. Ratha Kumud Mookerjee), Allahabad 1945-47, pp. 291-307. 48) Note that in both cases, i. e. in M. I 246. 2 and M. II 198. 4, the expression prasava is re
placed by pravrtti which latter is, however, used in what follows (M. I 246. 6 and II 198. 7) in the broader sense of the activity' consisting in the āvirbhävatirobhāvasthitirapaparināma
(cf. Pradipa IV 24 a 9 ff. and Uddyota IV 24 b 1). 49) The edition used in quoting from or referring to Kaiyata's Pradipa and Nägesa's Uddyota
is that produced by Bhargavaśāstri Joshi, Sivadatta Kudala and Raghunatha Sarmă, Bombay
(NSP), 1937-1951. 50) Cf. also Nāgesa's remark (Uddyota IV 23 a 31 f.): na tu ta dvyatiriktam iti/
ata evägre (viz. M. II 198. 5 f.] sarvās ca murtaya evamatmika iti bhāşyakaro vakşyati/. 51) Contributions à l'histoire de la philosophie linguistique indienne, Paris 1959, p. 41. 52) Cf. Uddyota IV 30 a 4 f. : bhasye sampratya ya iti / kimatmakam dravyam bhavan
manyata ity arthah //. 53) O. c., 1. c. 54) Cf., on the other hand, B. K. Matilal, Epistemology, Logic, and Grammar in Indian Philo
sophical Analysis, The Hague Paris 1971, p. 104. Perhaps Seyfort Ruegg was misled by the question (M. II 200. 14 f.) ka gatir etc. which is, however, meant to point out that the gender of certain primary and secondary derivations cannot be accounted for if the definition gunasa
mudayo dravyam is accepted (cf. Uddyota IV 30 a 14 ff.). 55) Uddyota IV 30 a 14 ff. 56) Cf. also Pradipa IV 29 a 21 ff. - For the term samniveśa cf. e. g. Yuktidipikā 48. 6 ff. See
also below p. 26. 57) Matilal (o. c., p. 104) rightly refers also to the M. on Pāņ. 5. 2. 42, ie, II 380. 2; yet, this
reference can also be found in the Uddyota IV 298 b 25 (read, however, tayapsütre).
