Mahābhāṣya ad P1.3.1研究(8)
A STUDY OF THE MAHĀBHĀṢYA AD P1. 3. 1 (8)
184.108.40.206.1. In vt. 5 the objection has been made: If one accepts that what denotes kriyā ('action') is called dhātu (kriyāvacano dhātuḥ), an additional statement should be made that √as, √bhū and √vid are called dhātu. In answer to this objection another definitional rule is proposed: That which denotes bhāva is called dhātu (bhāvacacano dhātuḥ). According to Kaiyaṭa, the term bhāva in this newly proposed definition is the one used in P2. 3. 37 and P3. 3. 18. meaning act in general (kriyāsāmānya), so that the definition can cover items like √pac as well as those like √bhū.
220.127.116.11.2. The question is brought up: How can one know items like √pac to denote bhāva? The answer is given: In utterances bhavati pacati, bhavati pakṣyati and bhavaty apākṣīt, the relation of concurrence (sāmānādhikaraṇya) is found between the meanings of √bhū and √pac, by virtue of which one knows √pac to denote bhāva. Since the relation of concurrence in question is such that the meaning of √bhū, which Kaiyaṭa directly glosses with ātmabharaṇa ('self-maintaining'), and that of √pac have the same locus, that is, the same agent, the utterance bhavati pacati, for example, conveys that one who is currently cooking exists. This is merely a tentative answer. Patañjali himself will deny that it is the relation of concurrence that is assumed to hold between the meanings of √bhū and √pac in the given utterances.
18.104.22.168.1.1. The problems are pointed out which arise in connection with the definition when the term bhāva is literally taken as derived from √bhū (bhavateḥ svapadarthaḥ).
If the term bhāva is analyzed as meaning bhavana ('existence') (bhavanaṃ bhvāvaḥ; bhāvasādhana), the definition cannot be applied to √bhid ('to destroy') and √chid ('to cut'), which denote the non-existence in the form of vināśa ('ruination'), contrary (vipratiṣiddha) to the bhāva.
22.214.171.124.1.2. Moreover, if the term bhāva is so analyzed, the term dhātu cannot be applied to √pac. In the case of √kṛ and √pac, one can have the question kiṃ karoti ('What action is he doing?') and the answer pacati ('He is doing the action of cooking'), which shows that the denotatum of √kṛ and that of √pac abide in the same locus through the relation of the universal and the particular (sāmānyaviśeṣabhāvena sāmānādhikaraṇyam). In the case of √bhū and √pac, however, one may not have such a question-and-answer, as is shown by the consistent occurrence of the same form bhavati in bhavati pacati, bhavati pakṣyati and bhavaty apākṣīt. This suggests that the denotata of √bhū and √pac cannot have the relation of the universal and the particular, so that one cannot say that √pac denotes a particular bhāva.
(To be continued.)