________________
A NOTE ON MAHĀBHĀSYA II 366.26
31 58) O. c., p. 101 ff.; cf. also Matilal's article “The Notion of Substance and Quality in Ancient
Indian Grammar" in: Acta et Communicationes Universitatis, II, 2, Tartu 1973, pp. 384-407, which does not, however, differ from what he has written in his book in analysing the discus
sion on Pän. 5. 1. 119. 59) I take this expression (and the synonymous nirdalatva) to mean literally "the fact of lacking
in anything unfolding itself" > "the being of no avail" > "unproductiveness" or rather "irrelevancy". It is met with also in the Laghuśabdendusekhara with Candrakala, ed. by Gopalaśāstri Nene, Pt. II. Kashi SS 5*, Benares 1924) p. 29 1. 12, 52. 1 and 530. 11 f. as well as in Jayatirtha's Nyäyasudha on Madhva's Anvākhyāna on BS 1. 1. 1 (viz, on verse 79) and
on BS 1. 1. 11 (viz. on verse 141). 60) O.c., p. 103 f. 61) O.c., p. 103 fn. 10. 62) Cf. e. g. P. Thieme's characterization and evaluation of Nägesa in : "Bhāşya zu värttika 5
zu Panini 1. 1. 9 und seine einheimischen Erklärer. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Wür.
digung der indischen grammatischen Scholastik", NGGW 1935, p. 198 f. 63) Cf. also fn. 2 on p. 297 of Vol. IV : ... yasya gunasya bhāvad dravye sabdaniveśas tadabhidhäne
tvatalav iti värttikena dravyavāca kāc chabdad gune tvatalau vidhtyete / tayoh prakrtipratyayarthayor
dravyagunayoh ko bheda iti praśnah //. 64). Viz. Uddyota IV 297 a 19 ff.. 65) Kaiyata can, as has been shown, only partly be regarded as trustworthy. 66) By using the singular with reference to khalv api I want to intimate that it should be re
garded as one compound particle. 67) Viz. his Sanskrit-Chrestomathie, St. Petersburg 1877, 227. 22 (which is Kasika on Pan. 2. 3.
5), 233, 6 (-Kasika on Pan. 2. 3. 36), 239. 5 (-Kāśikā on Pän. 2. 3. 70) and and 244. 3 (
Kāśikä on Pāṇ. 3. 3. 135). 68) Cf. Pradipa II 25 b 15 and Uddyota II 25 b 25 f. as well as V. P. Limaye, Critical Studies on
the Mahābhāşya, Hoshiarpur 1974, p. 78 f. 69) Cf. Nägeśa's remark (Uddyota [Rohtak ed. of the M.] V 401. 28) : bhasye' pi indriya'.
śabdena jihvaiva / vyaktibahutvād bahuvacanam /. 70) Cf. Nāgesa's explanation (Uddyota V 401. 29): sva s minn at man i ti / rasāsvādagraha
katvalakşane svasvarapa ity arthah /. 71) Cf. Kaiyata's explanation (Pradipa V 401. 18): tath eti / vyajyate 'nena rasa iti vyanjanam
Iraga iti / rajyate 'neneti rago vyanjanam eva /, and Nāgeśa's further elucidation (Uddyota V 401. 27 f.) vyaj yate 'neneti / jihvāya jadibhāvanirakaranena raso vyajyata ity arthah /.
Cf. also P. V. Limaye, Critical Studies on the Mahābhāya, Hoshiarpur 1974, p. 731. 72) Cf. Nägesa's remark (Uddyota IV 299 a 13 f.): ...athava yas y eti/ 'sadbhāvāt' iti beşah
/ yasyāvayavasamahasya sadbhāvād ity arthah /. - What immediately follows is the passage
quoted above p. 12. 73) O. c., p. 103. 73a) The historical interpretation of this Mahābhāşya passage apart, one could, of course, state
on material grounds that the etymologizing definition of dravya does not agree really well with the definition it is meant to corroborate, i.e. that the former does not necessarily fol
