________________
A. WEZLER
low from the latter and vice versa. But that is quite a different matter, and evidently not
what Matilal had in view. 74) As for the expression tattvad apracyuta- cf. also the material drawn upon by P. Hacker,
Vivarta. Studien zur Geschichte der illusionistischen Kosmologie und Erkenntnistheorie der Inder (Akad. d. Wiss. u. d. Lit., Abh. Geistes- und Sozialwiss. Kl. Jg. 1953, Nr. 4, pp. 179. 270) Mainz, 1953, p. 16 and 40 as well as e.g. Helarāja on Vākyapadiya IIII Kriyāsamuddeśa 26 (ed. K. A. Subrahmania Iyer, Poona 1973), p. 21 l. 21 ff. (where the corresponding definition of Yäska, Nir. I 2, is quoted too) and Yogabhāşya on YS 3. 15: ... pindah pracyavate ghata
upajāyata iti dharmaparināmakramah /. Cf. also fn. 76. 75) Cf. Frauwallner, Geschichte..., I (cf. fn. 17), p. 389. Note, however, that Frauwallner ap
parently failed to recognise that the sense in which these terms are used by Samkhya and Yoga authors is significantly different from that it has in Vaiseșika texts; cf. e. g. the pas
sage quoted from the Yogabhäşya in fn. 74. 76) Cf. also Nyayabhäsya on NS 3. 2. 15. P. Chakravarti, Origin and Development of the
Sāmkhya System of Thought, Delhi 1975, p. 258, fn. 2 refers also to Nirukta I 2 (ed. R. Roth.
Göttingen 1852, p. 31 l. 17): viparinamata ity apracyavamānasya tattvād vikāram (scil. acaste]. 77) The edition reads palasam palaśad here; yet one would rather expect palāśam palaśatvad. 78) Cf. fn. 6 above. 79) Cf. fn. 94 below. 80) I do not hence take this passage to be an explanation of the term vyaktipracaya occuring
Yuktidīpikā 48. 11, 49. 4 and 53. 26/31. 81) O. c., p. 104. 82) In connection with this question (which I cannot, however, discuss here) I should like to
draw attention, though in passing only, to the fact that the Samkhya definition of dravya bears a strong resemblance to the Sarvāstivādins' conception of phenomenal things as being nothing but an aggregate of atoms on which latter cf. e. g. E. Frauwallner, Die Philosophie des Buddhismus, Berlin 1958, pp. 64, 96 and 120; M. Hattori, Dignāga on Perception, Cambridge, Mass.1968, pp. 26 and 88f. (fn. 1. 38 and 39), and Abhidharmakośabhāşya ed. by P. Pradhan and A. Haldar, Patna 1975, pp. 24. 18 (see also Sphuţārtha Abhidharmakośavyākhyā by Yaśomitra, ed. by U. Wogihara, Tokyo 1971, Vol. I. p. 68. 4: paramānusañcayasvabhāvā daśaiva...), 34. 1 f., 52. 24 ff. and 475. 1 ff. (particularly 14 ff.) (Sautrāntika criticism of the Vaiseșika concept of atman). This similarity is indeed noteworthy, especially since the basic positions are distinctly different, viz. a marked substantialism in the case of the Samkhyas and a no less clearly expressed antisubstantialism in the case of the Vaibhāşikas. Likewise it can only be mentioned here that in the twelfth Ara of the NC, i. e. in the context of the critical discussion of Dignäga's apoha theory, the expression gunasamudaya is also met with (see 652. 14 together with fn. 1; 668. 5/21; 671. 1/3), though used with reference to that
which is denoted by a proper name like Dittha. 83) "Zum Begriff der Substanz (dravya) im Vaišeşika" in: WZKS 19 (1975), pp. 183-166 and
"The Vaiseșika Concept of guna and the Problem of Universals" in: WZKS 24 (1980), pp.
225-238. 84) Cf. Kaiyata's Pradipa above p. 13.
