Sanskrit Pranabhrt Or What Supports what

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269688/1

Page #1
Ritual, State and History in South Asia Essays in Honour of J.C. Heesterman edited by: A.W.. Van Den Hoek, D.H.A. Kolff M.S. Oort E, J. Brill Leiden-New York-Koln 1992 SANSKRIT PRANABHRT OR WHAT SUPPORTS WHAT? A. Wezler 1. The expression prdnabhrt is used by Panini only once, viz. in 5.1.129: pranabhrjjativayovacanodgatradibhyo " which is rendered by Bohtlingk' thus: 'An Thiernamen, Altersbczcichnungen und an udgdir usw. wird + a angefugt". His interpretation of pranabhrt is accepted also by S.C. Vasu and Renou, but S.M. Katre takes a different path in that he translates it by "animate beings. As this sutra of Panini's is not even referred to in the Mahabhasya, quite naturally one looks into the Candravyakarana (- CV) and the Kasika for examples for the application of this grammatical rule. In the Vrtti on CV 4.1.145 the first part of the stra is illustrated by the secondary noun afvam occurring along with afvatvam and afvata; the examples in the Kasika are (afvasya bhavah karma wa) dfvam, austram. Both these cxamples scem to warrant rather Bohtlingk's, and his followers, rendering of pranablurt than that of Katre. Yet is has to be noted that Candragomin (perhaps following the example of Jainendravyakarana 3.4.119) has replaced Panini's prdnabhrijdti- by pranijddi- most probably he, too, was of the opinion that has been explicitly voiced by Haradatta and Jinendrabbudhi, viz. that pranabhrtahmeans praninah. If this equation is correct, the question arises why Panini dit not himself use the expression pranin also in this sutra as in a number of others. For quite clearly the change of expression cannot be objected to as an infringement of the law of linguistic parsimony' since the ardhamatralaghava-paribhasa has not been observed by Panini sensu stricto. Is the motive hence that pointed out by Haradatta, viz. simply the wish to change the mode of expression for stylistic reasons? This explanation looks rather like a last resort desparately searched for; it is in any case not convincing cnough to discourage the modern students of the Astadbyayi from starting from the contrary assumption, viz. that it is difference of meaning which is at play here in reality. 1.1. The examination of those sutras in which the word pranin occurs? cither as such or as a member of a compound, Icads to the following observations. "Lebendes Wesen" (Bohtlingk) is too broad a concept to render pranin. Pan. 4.3.135 (avayave ca pranyosadhirksebhyah) shows with as much clarity as one can wish for that "herbs" and "trees, and thus ultimately plants in general, are not subsumed under pranino; on the other hand it is equally clear that this sotra cannot by any means be regarded as an instance of the application of the brahmana-vasisha

Page #2
394 A. WEZLER SANSKRIT PRANABHRT 395 lock of hair on the crown of the head' . in contradistinction to a person who wears a diadem or chaplet tied on the crown of the head. and "being characterized by a tubercle/large ears" (7) . in contradistinction to a person who wears ear-rings. But even if Haradatta is not to be trusted as regards his opinion that the suffix under discussion is met with, in the object language, in fact only as added to designations of "parts of the body" (pranyangad eva hisyate), the first of the two examples is in any case of such a kind that there is no room for any doubt that what is referred to by pranin with reference to it is again a human being. Finally the examples found in the CV and Kasika respectively. which are meant to explain and justify the addition of the expression apranin in Pan. 2.4.6 and 6.3.77 viz. brahmanaksatriyau (CV 2.2.53) bralmanaksatriyavisfildrh (Kas.) and ago wsalah fitena (CV 5.2.96 as well as Kas on 6.3.77). "the low/wicked man/the sudra is stiff with cold , are further evidence of the fact that pronin does not, in the Astadhyayi, also mean "animal", but quite evidently "breathing living being", i.e. that the term denotes a large category of living beings from man down to fish all of which can easily be observed to breathe, and as long as they are alive; significantly prdnin docs not include plants and most probably also not the lower animals", i.e. animals which are not easily recognized as (equally) breathing nyaya. There is no reason whatsoever, be it factual or theoretical or grammatical, to call herbs and trees the most important living beings." On the other hand, Panini can certainly be expected to have shared the view, prevailing as it was in Ancient India, to say the least, that plants are also living beings. Vasu and Katre seem to have come to the same conclusion or to have had the same feeling, but their proposal to render pranin by 'animal" likewise docs not stand critical examination. It is true that in a number of cases names of animals are given as examples or counter-cxamples, in the Mahabhasya: svart, "dog", kaka, "crow", fuka, "parrot' (MBhasya I 450.171)", kapota, "pigeon" (MBhasya II 325.157.2 etc.) and other birds like gdhra, casa and bhasa (MBhasya II 326.16f.), but also svavidh, "porcupine" (MBhasya II 327.11f) and matsya, "lish" (MBhasya III 443.200.). To these have to be added vydghra, "tiger" (CV 4.4.82)", srgala, "jackal" (Kas on 2.3.17), birds like the "peacock" (maytira) and the "partridge (tittiri) (Kas on 4.3.135) and, last but not least, vanara, "ape, monkey" (Kas on 5.4.97). On the other hand, however, Panini uses the expression pranyanga, "(constitutive) part of a pranin", viz. in 2.4.2 dvandvasca pranitiryasenangdndm (scil. ekavacanam, cf. 2.4.1), and there can not indeed be the least doubt that what he refers to are singular dvandva compounds like panipadam (CV 2.2.58 and Kasika) or firogrivam (Kasika); at least the first of these examples is clear evidence of the fact that the notion pranin covers human beings, too. This conclusion is confirmed by a number of examples adduced to illustrate other sutras of Panini's. The first to be discussed is the compound kofanisada, mentioned by Patanjali (MBhasya 11 438.131).17 in tacitly referring to 5.2.128 (dvandvopatapagarhydt praristhdd inih); unfortunately this passage has not only been overlooked by the compilers of our dictionaries, but obviously the compound also is not attested in other texts; it is hence but a mere guess that particular pieces of clothes are referred to by this word. Jinendrabuddhi, however, seems not to be in any doubt that what is denoted by this dvandva "belongs to or is worn by" (pranistha) a human being, i.e. a female. This certainly holds good for the denotatum of the words given as examples in the CV and in the Kasika for Pan. 5.2.128, viz. "bracelet and armlet" (katakavalayin!), "shell-bracelet(s) and anklet(s)" (Sankhamupurini, in the Kas. only) and various diseases . perhaps also for that which is to be held in contempt' (garhya). Particularly clear in this regard is P&. 5.2.96 (pranisthad ito laj anyatarasydn), according to which the secondary sulfix la is optionally added to a stem ending in , provided that it denotes something which is prdistha. for most convincingly this rule is illustrated in the CV and in the Kasika by the examples ciidalal, side by side with cudavan, and in addition in the Kas.) by kamikalahwhich can be replaced by karidwan, and vice versa: what these Avrnecions mean is according to Haradatta "being characterized by 1.2. Now, il prdnabhrt. of 5.1.129 . is not synonymous with pranin, in the strict sense of having exactly the same meaning, its meaning could indeed be "animal", i.e. it could denote the category of all (breathing) living beings except for men, and perhaps for lower animals, too. Yet, the examples given in the CV and in the Kasika point to a somewhat different direction. It is not, of course, by any means certain that these examples. apart from being representative, perhaps, of a (much) larger group of words covered by the grammatical rule. may be regarded as nevertheless circumscribing and thus determining the kind of animals referred to in 5.1.129. But if this latter assumption is madetentatively and argumenti causa what suggests itself is quite clearly that what is referred to by pranablut are particular animals only, i.e. that the "horse' (afva) and the 'camel" (ustra) are mentioned because they are typical representatives of this special group; and this group cannot then but be that of domestic animals. This assumption cannot, however, be verified with the help of the Astadhyayi itself as there are no further occurrences of the word pranabhrt in it. But quite clearly a method can be applied that has proved successful in other cases, too, viz. that of taking into consideration the testimony of Vedic literature. After all Panini's own language, even his meta-language, cannot be regarded as an island completely isolated from the mainland of contemporary Old Indo-Aryan which in its turn has developed out of the Vedic idiom(s) and dialects.

Page #3
A. WELLR SANSKRIT PRANADIIRI 2. There is an additional strong reason to examine the Vedic occurrences of pranabhut . and some of those in classical texts, too and this is the corresponding entry in the Larger l'etrograd Dictionary; for it reads thus: ... adj. 1) das Leben erhaltend: devah pranabhrtah pranam mayi dadhatu TS 3,3,2,1. anna Sat.Br. 8,1,2,1. - 2) Leben in sich tragend, lebendig, m. ein lebendes Wesen: Mensch yat kim cedam pranabhrt Sat.Br. 14,6,1,12,... 3) Bez gewisser Backsteine bei der Schichtung des Altars TS. 5,2,10,3...". For this shows that Bohtlingk and Roth assume a change of diathesis and accordingly a difference of meaning. However, as they do not, viz. s.v. prana as well as s.v. bhar, quote a single instance of the syntagma "pranam/prdnan bharate, meaning "bearing life within oneself at that), a nagging doubt arises whether what they say is really true. And this doubt is intensificd by the observation that the meaning which Bohtlingk assumes for Pan. 5.1.129 is not even mentioned in the Dictionary. One could, of course, think of comparing the other Vedic compounds with the posterior member bhurt but it is easily realized that this avenue docs not Icad us to our goal; for even if all the other compounds of this kind show that the root has its active meaning, the possibility cannot be precluded with absolute certainty that in the case of pranabhrt it is the middle voice which is expressed by bhr. rite. In the given context there can not again be the least doubt that the expression in question means "supporting another person's or living being's) vital breath". That it is a particular plant which is qualified here as being pranabhrt does not, of course, warrant the conclusion that vegetable life as such comes under the category of "breath supporting entities. It may well be that this plant only indirectly supports breath, e.g. in that it wards off some evil which in its turn endangers the life of a person or some other living being. The line AV(P) 16.71.8 (cd), viz. sam pranena pranabham srjdmi sam viryena payasafisa I, where odana seems to be the object referred to, deserves attention not only because of the singular pranena, but also because of the fact that here "breath' is not spoken of as the result, so to say, of the beneficent activity of a pranabhrt, but is meant to explain together with other "Krastsubstanzen' the "breath supporting" capacity of the odana. Last but not least it has, of course, to be noted that it is a particular dish in this case, which is predicated of as prunabhrt: most probably it performs this its life-suppporting function in a direct manner. I should follow now with the second of the passages referred to by Bohtlingk and Roth, but not without first drawing attention briefly to VadhsS 3.53.1 where in a mantra used during the Vajapeya the 17th graha is addressed, at the end, with the words atmd pitd pranabhum me 'si pitan2, a statement which resembles TS 3.3.2.1, apart from the fact that here it is a special sacrificial, and sacred, substance, viz the soma, to which the pricst turns.29 SB 8.1.3.1, to finally focus attention on this passage, reads thus: tad ahuh/kim pranah, kim pranabhria iti prdnd eva prana angani pranabhyty drgani hi pranan blbhrati pranas tv dvd prand annam pranabhid annari i pranar: bibharti II. 2.1. As for the passage TS 3.3.2.1 quoted in the Larger Petrograd Dictionary the cpithelon pranabltah of the "gods" (devah)", i.e. Vayu, Agni, Prajapati, Brhaspati, Visve Devah, the Maruts and Indra, is explained by the remaining part of the mantra: They are requested, or prompted, to bestow breath/vital breath on the speaker in so far as it is their very nature "to support breath", to draw on Keith's translation.26 In this case it is perfectly clear that the "breath" (prana) they support is not their own and that it is a human being who wants prana to be supported in himself, and he expresses this wish not because he is about to be born and to breathe for the first time in his life, but because he is aware of the fact that his breathing, i.e. life, is a finite phenomenon, or because he is afraid of breathing his last in not too distant a future. It is also noteworthy that the prior member of the compound pranabhytah is resumed as it were by the singular pranam. Now, this example for the use of pranabhrt is not at all without parallels. Thus AV(P) 4.12.3(ab) reads thus: The ritual act referred to is that of building the sacred fire-altar, for which among others bricks called pranabhrt are used. This passage is indeed noteworthy, but not only because of the 'identification of pranabhrt and anna "food", as Bohtlingk and Roth would seem to have thought; what deserves our attention is the way the compound is paraphrased, viz. by parasmaipada verb forms throughout and the plural prdnan. Two, obviously alternative, explanations are here given both of which regard the meaning of pranahas not calling for any comment; they differ, however, from each other as regards the 'identification of the pranabhrts; yet both the identifications are equally well intelligible; the limbs of the body, or which taken together form the body, evidently of a human being, are no less important than food for its survival, prana in the narrower sense of a particular type of breath being in any case included in the plurality of vital forces called pranah here. Arjabhrfam pranabhrfam prajanam na tarpanim /; this refers, if I am not mistaken, to the plant called posipami, whatever its botanical identity may be27, which is used in a magical

Page #4
398 A. WEZLER SANSKRIT PRANABHRT 399 pranan dadhati tasmad pranabhita upa dadhati retasyeva vadan pranan pafyan Srvan pafur jdyate 2.2. This passage thus not only reminds us of AV(P) 16.71.8(cd), just discussed, but may also serve as a most welcome transition to TS 5.7.10.2. For, the question implicitly raised by SB 8.1.3.1, viz. what food is, is answered in the Samhita: In the context of an 'identification of the prdnabhrt bricks with the heads of domestic animals (pasufirsani) it is expressedly stated... annam pasava(h).... [for domestic animals are food/the food". And the same 'identification is met with among others." at SB 8.3.3.4. It would, of course, be pretty naive to regard this statement as reversible and as a definition of what is called anvia in Vedic Sanskrit; numerous passages disproving this assumption could easily be pointed out, c.g. in the same Brahmana (SB 8.2.3.6)... annan vd apo ... Nor can passages like TS 5.7.10.2 be simply brushed aside as lacking any significance as it has ultimately been done by the compilers of the Larger Petrograd Dictionary. The ideas connected with the designation of particular clay bricks as prdnabhrt are, quite on the contrary, of palpable importance as the terminological use of the word prdnabhrt is, as is to be expected, viewed by the Vedic 'theologians' as directly related to the meaning it has in everyday language. A particularly clear proof is SB 8.1.4.1...yat pranam blbhrati tasindt pranabhrfa ti... It is hence necessary to inspect all relevant passages, i.e. passages where this type of bricks is mentioned. Among them are some which prove to be 'unproductive': quite understandably the authors of the Brahmanas, ctc., did not dcem it necessary to give a 'theological explanation in each and every case the name of a ritual utensilis mentioned in passing, so to say. Such passages are Kaps 31.18 (- Kaths 21.3); SB 8.1.4.2; 8.2.3.6; 9.5.1.36; 10.2.4.8; 10.4.3.14-16; ApSs 16.32.1f; 17.1.4; 17.2.3; 20.19.12; HISS 11.8.67; KsS 17.6.3; 17.8.12f; 17.9.11 and SYV Anukramanika 2.177. On the other hand there is also no dearth of passages which come up to our expectations in that they throw considerable light on what the Vedic Indians thought of when these bricks were mentioned. The association with food, already observed above, is attested also at SB 8.1.1.3 where the pranas and Prajapati are said to have created anvia which is than cquated with the prdnabhurts." Not surprisingly this name is not seldom 'identified' with pranah, the breath(s) and other vital forces, and these, or rather the breath(s) in its/their turn, with wind (viye). Significantly, however, the idea connected with the laying down of these bricks is that the officiating priest thereby bestows the vital breath(s)/forces upon somebody else or something different from the bricks themselves, cg, the altar (agni), etc. See eg. TS 5.3.1.2: SB 8.1.1.1, 8.1.4.10 and 8.3.2.14, or 8.2.3.3: yad eva pranabhria upadadhati asv dvaitat prajasu pranan dadhati... Alrcadly by their number, however, those passages stand out in which it is the concept of cattle (rafue) that is associated with the designation prunabhrt. Thus at TS 5.2.10.3 we read: "he puts down the breath-supporting (bricks) verily he places the breaths in the seed; therefore an animal is born with speech, breath, sight and hearing". Apart from containing an explanation of the meaning of the plural pranal, this statement is interesting also because it immediately follows upon the description, and exegetical interpretation, of the laying down of the "water bricks' (apasya). One is almost given the impression that the sequence water . cattle is a deliberate one, i.e. connected with the successive laying down of these two types of bricks in view of the real dependence of cattle, and animal life in general, upon water, i.e. in view of the fact that the former by necessity presupposes the latter. And this impression is confirmed by TS 5.3.1.3 where it is stated that the priest should change the sequence, i.e. lay down first the pranabhirts and then the apasyvis, if he wants somebody to become apafu, but that he should observe the 'normal' sequence if he wishes that somebody should become a pafumani! And in TS 5.2.10.6 the particular manner of putting down bricks transversely is recognized to be the reason of the movement of limbs characteristic of (certain) animals (pasu)." The connection between the pranabhurts and pasul, or rather the latter's breathing and certain cognitive and 'communicative capacities, is expressed (more concisely than at TS 5.2.10.3 quoted above) at MS 3.2.8: athaith pranabhtas tasmin frotrari vacam tani dadhaty ... pafau samblite prandm caksuh In order to avoid the objection of laying too much stress on statements which could be denounced as being just an outcome of the desparate endeavour of the authors of these texts to ascribe a deep and secret significance to the smallest details of complex ritual acts, I shall confine myself to a minimal exploitation of the material presented in the foregoing. That is to say, what I propose to regard as an important testimony is nothing but the fact that in all cases in which a substantial statement is provoked by the name of the pranablurt bricks, it is quite cvidently taken for granted or even expressly said that they support, or have the function of supporting the prana/prdnas of something somebody different from themselves. Therefore there cannot be the least doubt that the authors of these texts considered the technical term pranabht to be what has later been called by Indian grammarians an anvartha samjha and that they took the appellative noun to mean that which supports the prana(s) for another entity/bcing)"

Page #5
400 A. WEZLER 3. This view is not, of course, necessarily correct, i.e. we can not still be absolutely sure, that this, and only this, was the meaning which Old Indian pranabhrt had in common parlance. But it is certainly legitimate to make this very assumption as part of an experiment to be continued hereafter by a corresponding semantic study. The solution, that almost forces itself on one's mind is then that what is referred to by pranabhrt are certain animals with regard to their singular importance of supporting, and ultimately, making possible, human life: They support and provide for the life of human beings by the various products they yield, by their meat, but clearly by rendering other services, too, i.e. as sacrificial or draught animals. Since already the poets of the Rgveda can be shown to have been fully aware of the fact that animal life depends upon vegetable life and that the latter in its turn upon rain, i.c. water in general, the existence of an expression like pranabhrt, provided the interpretation given proves to be correct, cannot be regarded as indicating a change of the 'Weltbild', at least not in this regard; but, to be sure, it is clear evidence of the fact that the keeping of cattle and in general of livestock has been regarded in Vedic India as the most important basis of subsistence: In the consciousness of the people, and not only of the priests, in the common system of values, both mundane and religious, those animals upon which the Vedic Indian depended in a very concrete sense of the word, have played an outstanding role and were therefore given the highest rank. The expression pranabht is hence but another piece of evidence for a fact already well-known as regards Vedic culture and economy, and the 'ideology' that grew around it; and indeed putting such an extraordinary value on livestock is almost natural in a society which has for centuries been in motion, so to say, the members of which were not settled in the strict sense of establishing somewhere a permanent residence for generations but cannot also, on the other hand, be called nomades or transhumants. If this interpretation of pranabht is correct, there is great likelihood that at least originally only, or at least first of all, domestic animals were referred to by this word. As the prana they support is, according to our sources, that of man, the expression by itself testifies to a marked, albeit naive, anthropocentrism: These animals are not important for their own sake, or that of 'nature', the universe, etc., but because they serve man as means of his subsistence. 4.1. The essential question to be discussed now is of course whether there is any evidence in Vedic texts that pranabhrt used as an appellative has in fact this meaning. I think, this question can safely be answered in the affirmative. For, at AiA 2.3.1 what we read is among others: SANSKRIT PRANABHRT 401 tasmin yo 'nnam cannadam ca vedahasminn annddo jayate bhavaty asyannam, osadhivanaspatayo 'nnam pranabluto 'nnddam osadhivanaspatin hi pranabhrto 'danti, rendered thus by Keith42: "to him who knows food and feeder a feeder. is born, and food is his. Plants and trees are food, animals the feeder, for animals cat plants". That this translation is correct, at least as regards the interpretation of the word pranabhrt and that he did right not to believe Sayana 43 is proved by the subsequent part of the text, viz.: tesam ya ubhayatodantah purusasyanuvidha vihitas, te 'nnada annam itare pasavas tasmat ta itaran pasan adhiva caranty adhiva hy anne 'nnado bhavati "of animals, those who have teeth above and below and are for med like men, are feeders, the rest food. They overcome therefore the other animals, for the feeder is over the food":45 It is not less clear that pranabht means "animal" in the next khanda also, i.e. AiA 2.3.2: atmanam raso osadhivanaspatayo yac ca kimca pranabhrt sa avistaram vedausadhivanaspatisu hi driyate cittam pranabhrtsu pranabhrtsu tv evavistaram atma, tesu hi raso 'pi dryate na cittam itaresu puruse tv evavistaram atma sa hi prajnanena sampannatamo vijnatam vadati vijnatam palyati veda Svastanam veda lokalokau martyenamrtam ipsaty evam sampannah athetaresam pasinam atanapipase evabhivijnanam na vijnatam vadanti na vijnatam pafyanti na viduh Svastanam na lokalokau ta etavanto bhavanti yathaprajnam hi sambhava II. "There are plants and trees and animals, and he knows the self more and more clearly (in them). For in plants and trees sap only is seen, in animals consciousness. In animals the self becomes more and more clear, because in them sap also is seen, while thought is not seen in others. The self is more and more clear in ma n. For he is most endowed with intelligence, he says what he has known, he sees what he has known, he knows tomorrow, he knows the world and what is not the world. By the mortal he desires the immortal, being thus endowed. A s for the other, animals, hunger and thirst comprise their power of knowledge. They say not. They go so far, for their experiences are according to the measure of their intelligence".46 That is to say, in these two cases the context itself contains elements that quite clearly indicate that the concept of pranabhrt does not include man, too. These fascinating passages which have already attracted the attention of scholars, but should nevertheless be studied

Page #6
402 A. WEZLER SANSKRIT PRANABHRT samruddhacestasya mrgendra kamam hasyari vacas tad yad ahan vivaksuh/ antargatam pranabhrtam hi veda sarvam bhavan bhavam ato bhidhasye // again for various reasons among which their significance for the Indian theories about non-human life and nature, should perhaps be mentioned first are highly instructive for the problem at issue also because of the following observations they allow us to make: The words pranabhrt and pasu are used here as synonyms; pranabhurt meaning "animal(s)" is opposed here to osadhivanaspatayah which latter compound has to be regarded as intending "plants, vegetable life"; finally the phrase yac ca kimca pranabhrt, "and all that supports breath" > "all that belongs to the animal kingdom" is worthy of note. For in the light of these observations one will not hesitate to assume that pranabhit means "animal", and not just "living being" or even "man", in JB 3.87, too: "O king of the beasts, what I, kept as I am from moving, want to say may be laughed at [by other people]; [but] I am going to speak, for you know each and every internal intention of the pranabhurts and therefore also that my words are true)". bhir iti vyahrtih / tad ayam loko gir devatd ... rathantaram sama vasavo devata vanaspatayaf causadhayas ca / bhuva iti vydlrtih / tad idam antariksam wayur devata ...vdmadeyani sama rudra devatapas ca pranabhrc ca/ ... 8 The wider context and the verse as it stands clearly shows that Dilipa himself as a human being) is included in what is called pranabhit here; it is hence entirely convincing that its meaning is "living being" here. Neither is the capacity to express themselves by words, or sounds, confined to human beings - and this very 'story of the Raghuvamsa is itself evidence enough. nor is the special cognitive faculty of this particular lion likely to be effective with regard to men only. The existence of the meaning "living being of pranabhrt in classical Sanskrit can not therefore be denied. It is confirmed in its way also by the Middle Indo-Aryan tadbhavas, e.g. Pali panabhii, panabhita "a living The situation is slightly different as regards JB 3.359: It is highly probable that yat kimca pranabhrt safariram occurring there should not be dislinked from the phrase as it is attested in the AiA; but as the corresponding ya kimcabh tam afariram contains the hapax abhira and is not therefore clear, at least not to me, a doubt remains. creature':50 4.2. We can hence be sure that Vedic pranabhyt "supporting the breath(s) (of somebody else)' is - apart from being a designation of particular bricks - used, most probably as a substantive, to denote certain animals in view of their importance for the survival of man. Yet the remaining passages from Vedic texts referred to in the Larger Petrograd Dictionary haved still to be examined, viz. those with regard to which Bohtlingk and Roth deemed it necessary to assume a second, different mcaning, viz. "Leben in sich tragend, lebendig; m. ein lebendiges Wesen; Mensch 4.2.1. But before taking this step it is necessary to emphasize that the meanings "living, a living being" and "human being provided they are really attested in the sources, could be accounted for also by simply assuming a semantic development, viz. in the form of first, an extension of meaning which would, then, have been followed by restriction. That is to say, the meaning "living, living being could be explained without inferring from it a change of diathesis of the final member of pranabhrt. Among the references given in the Larger Petrograd Dictionary there is one which is of particular interest at this point of our discussion, viz. Raghuv. 2.42, where Dilipa says to the speaking lion who has introduced himself as Kumbhodara, a servant of Siva (but in reality is the god' hinsell, a fact, however, still unknown to the king): A statement like that of the Tribikhara-Brahmanopanisad (2.148).... pranah prdnabhta varah, made with reference to a particular nadi, however, testifies to the fact that even in later times the formation and literal meaning of this compound was fully understood viz. that is has 'correctly been taken to mean "supporting breath/life" . and to call prana, "brcath" itself a life supporting force (pranabh), or to be more precise the best of the life supporting forces, is as justified as it is witly. An even clearer proof is offered by the Brahmastras, for at 1.3.4 pranabhrt is clearly used to denote the "individual 'soul''self" (vijnandtman). Now, this is, no doubt, a philosophical reinterpretation, but a reinterprctation which was possible only because the original meaning was clear to the person who wanted to use pranabhrt in order to denote that which in the final analysis, i.e. philosophically, has to be recognized as the ultimate, i.e. only real basis, and origin, of biological life, viz. the permanent 'soul/self. 4.2.2. In view of this evidence it is, it would seem to me, hardly possible to keep to the assumption that the starting point of this semantic development can not but have been a pranabhrt meaning "Lehen in sich tragend"; for even authors of classical texts quite evidently have still paraphrased it as prdnam bharati. The development must hence have been a different one; and indeed I don't see any reason why we should not assume that the meaning "certain animal(s)' has been broadened via: "animal(s)" to "living being(s)/creature(s)* . which is practically identical with that of pranin at a later stage of the semantic

Page #7
404 A. WEZLER SANSKRIT PRANABHRT 405 asterisms such as tisya are called - and to wit by the learned .60 "life force", i.e. are classed with the life forces, because the existence of (breathing) living beings, first of all human beings, depends on them: The use of pranah, albeit in the Sastra only, with reference to certain celestial bodies is, I think, an interesting parallel to the extension of meaning observed with regard to prdnabhrt so as to include human beings, too, in so far as in both these cases a new, i.e. historically later, 'knowledge', viz. of the influence of asterisms on life on carth and of the role played by man himself in supporting life, has been, or rather may have been taken into account. development of the latter word - including men and, although no clear evidence for this can be brought forward, plants, too. On the contrary, regard this development as particularly plausible if the following considerations are taken into account. Already in Vedic times the use of prdnabhrt to denote certain animals did not correspond to the stage of knowledge about the interdependence of different forms of life, but was based on an emotional - and traditional - high regard for livestock, rather than on soberly balanced reflection. In any case, the cultural and cconomical development of ancient Indian society took a course which cannot but have made at least a large part of the population aware of the extraordinary and direct importance of the vegetable kingdom as a means of subsistence for man. And for any word meaning "vegetable and animal life the step is but short to its assuming the still broader meaning of living beings', including men; in the case of prdnablut, however, it is important to note that this latter step in its semantic development has meant at the same time the loss or at least an essential alteration of its original) anthropocentric background; but one may well doubt if this was felt by later Sanskrit authors. On the other hand, it is important to see clearly that this semantic development was in itself not influenced by the fact that the word was even in later times now and then rightly recognized to be paraphrasable by pranam bharati (and that it offers itself accordingly for a play of words or can be reinterpreted): the conventional lexical denotation of a word, and its development, are one thing; its derivational meaning, and the possibilities it offers to those who are aware of it, are something quite different. It is in this particular connection that I should like to draw attention to a remark of Patanjali's, the Mahabhasyakara's. At the end of his discussion of Pan. 1.2.63 (tisyapunarvasvor naksatradvandve bahuvacanasya dvivacanam nityam, 'in a Dvamdva compound formed from names of asterisms ... of fisya 'a single asterism' and punarvasu "twin star asterisms' the dual ... necessarily ... replaces the plural ..."), the question is raised what purpose is served by the expression bahuvacanasya in the sutra. The answer is to prevent the application of Pan. 1.2.63 to the singular dvandva compound tisyapunarvasu. This Icads to the next question, viz. the justification of the singular, which is answered by referring to Pan. 2.4.6 jatir apraninam (dvandvah: 2.4.2 ekavacanam: 2.4.1]). This argument is refuted by the counterargument that asterisms do not belong to the category of pranins. This objection is in its turn refuted by a rule of interpretation, viz., sarvo dvandvo vibhasayaikavad bhavati", and - alternatively. by stating (MBhasya 1 232.61.): athand natrabhavantah praninah, prand evitrabhavantah I, or/or rather their Honours (i.c. asterisms like tisya, punarvasu, etc.) are not breathing living beings; their Honours are in fact prdnas". This is cxplained by Kaiyata in his Pradipa (II 70 a 24ff.)S thus: athaveti: na hy elesu loke praniavaharah prasiddha iti bhavah prind eveti: Padahamuthini naninde ata eva prdnd uyante Il. That is to say, 4.2.3. When Narada thus addresses God Vayu at Mbh. (ed. Poona) 12.151.4(ab): janami vam aham vdyo sarvapranabhtam varam I, a much more convincing interpretation than "(as) the best of the living beings', obviously favoured by Bohtlingk and Roth, would certainly be "(as) the best of the deities/forces who support life fupon earth!". And it would not also be necessary then, although possible, to assume that this Vedic cpitheton of gods was still known as such to the Epic poel because the etymology of prdnabhrt has clearly remained comprehensible in later times also. This leads us back to the passages referred to in the Larger Petrograd Dictionary which have still to be scrutinized. Almost all of them are found in later Vedic texts so that it cannot be entirely precluded that pranablert is used in them in a sense already somewhat removed from the original one. But it is, I think, methodically legitimate to make this assumption if and only if the old(er) meaning is clearly not compatible with what is said in the corresponding sentence and/or section, i.e. wider context. SB 14.6.1.12 - BAU 3.1.7: Yajlavalkyeri hovaca - katiblir ayam adyargblir holdin yajrle karisyarili / fisbhir iti / katamds tisa ili / purnuvakydca yayd ca tasyaiva Artyd / kim tabhir jayatiti / ya kim cedam prdnablid til Bohtlingk renders the last sentence by 'alles, was hier Leben hat"; but I don't see any necessity to assume that the formula ya kim cedam prdnabhrt should have been used here in a sense different from that it has in the AIA, especially since the puronuvakyd etc. are subsequently, viz. at BAU 3.1.10, 'identified' with the prang, apana and vydna. The indirect relation between the prana, etc., and the prdnabyts need not consist in the idea that the latter "bear" the former 'within themselves"; both can be vicwed as equally plausibly related to each other by the fact that the animals called prdnabhrt support these "breaths". Yet it has to be admitted that at least in the passage to be discussed now, viz. SB 11.2.6.2, there seems to be more to this relation for this passage reads thus: prdnd evdsyedhmah / prdiena hidan drvam iddham ydt prdnabhin nimisddydd ejati sa vidydd dham evaisd idlund i 1. The Matement that what is called prdnabhyt is "kindled by breathis does

Page #8
400 A. WELLER SANSKRIT PRANALARI 01 hierarchy of living beings the lowest one of which is the lizard or chameleon starts from man at the top. But by what part of the passage is this indicated? Is there not, on the contrary, found here a statement which quite clearly points to the opposite direction, viz. that man is not included here in the category of prdnabhrts? What I have in mind is the phrase pranar na vicchindyad; for should we really assume that the author thought of the possibility of homicide and deemed it hence necessary to forbid it during the night of the new moon? And, finally, one should not. as Bohtlingk apparently did in that he renders pranabhrt here by "lebendes Wesen 8. be misled by the juxtaposition of pranabhrt and pranam: To speak of the breath of a pranabhrt does not by any means imply that this word characterizes living beings as "bearing breath within themselves"! This seems to have been Bohtlingk's and Rotli's central error, and to be the ultimate reason of entry 2) s.v. pranabhrt in their Dictionary. That is to say, in this case, too, we should not deviate from "animals (in general)"; and thus this passage rather testifies to the first step in the broadening of the meaning of the compound in question. Similarly, the last of the Vedic passages, viz. Kauss. 135.9, does not stand critical examination, i.e. is not sufficiently clear as a proof of pranabhrt being used in the sense of "living being including man)'. For it reads thus: not, however, by any means imply that the compound has to be taken here to mean "bearing breath within oneself"! On the contrary, there is sufficient proof that the Vedic thinkers were fully aware of the fact that the particular animals subsumed under the concept pranabhrt, and not only man himself whose life they are destined to support, are in principle equally, though to a lesser degree, endowed with prana, "breath", and the other pranas. This is most clearly shown by some of the passages studied in sections 2.1 and 2.2. It is in the case of SB 11.2.6.2 hence not at all necessary to assume that pranabhit is not used in the sense of animal", or rather, in view of nimisad yad ejati, of certain animals, i.e. livestock; but it is on the other hand possible that the author has deliberately played with the two words prana and pranabhrt or wished to explain that the latter are able to fulfil their task of supporting breath only because they themselves breathe, are alive because of constant breathing. "The observations made with regard to this passage are of relevance for the interpretation of SB 9.2.1.15, too, where it is said to wit, of the pranah, that naivd te divi na prthivyam yad pranabhit tasmints id fti. For this is clearly a statement about the location of the pranas; but we are again not justified in drawing the conclusion that the compound pranabhrt is used here in order to express that the pranas reside in the living being denoted by it, or, in other words, that these living beings are called pranabhrt because of their having these pranas, or "bearing them "within themselves', just as there is no real need to assume that the author intended a statement about all the loci of the pranas and hence thought of human beings also. On the other hand, I don't want to overstate my position and entirely deny the possibility - to some it may still appear to be even a more probable interpretation that (here as well as at SB 11.2.6.2) "man" is intended, too, then however only marginally. This holds equally good for at least the first of the two passages now to be discussed where human beings, if at all included in the expression pranabhrt, are again not, in my view, the centre of attention. Similarly I am reluctant to agree with Bohtlingk's interpretation of pranabht at SB 14.4.3.22 - BAU 1.5.14: sa esa samvatsarah prajapatih sodafakalah tasya rdtraya eva paricadasa kalah dhin vaivasya sodasi kala / saratribhir evd captiryate apa caksiyate / 50 'mavdsydm ratrim etayd sodasya kalaya sarvam idam pranabhrd anupravifya tatah pratar jayate / tasmad etam ratrim pranabhrtah pranat ha vicchindys api krkalasasyaitasya eva devataya apacityai Il. It is, of course, true that not only animals, but also human beings sleep at night and that a god can therefore be conceived of as entering them, in a particular night, and being born from them again at dawn, etc. But what counts is not that what is possible, or what we Western interpreters of the modern age regard as possible, but what the text itself says, and in nler i rrininly nossible. in theory at least, that the bahavo 'sya 69 pasa vitatah puthivyam asamkhyeya aparyanta anantah/ yabhir vam an abhinidadhati praninam yan kanisceman pranabhrtam jighamsan // Most of the arguments advanced by me in the preceding discussion of BAU 1.5.14 apply to this passage, too, but I don't think it is necessary to repeat them. Really new is only the juxtaposition of pranin and pranabhrt. But can we be sure that these terms are here exactly of the same extension? The answer cannot but be in the negative; for, even il pranin means "(breathing) living being including man)', it is not only possible that pranabhrt refers to the partially different group of "animals in general)" or "livestock", but there is also greater likelihood that the latter expression is not semantically a mere, and hence redundant, repetition of the expression preceding it in the relative clause. 5. Returning now, at the end of these remarks, to Pan. 5.1.129, it has to be admitted that the result of the rather long exploratory tour for the solution of the problem posed by this sutra is rather disappointing. For, we are still not in a position to instantly decide what is meant by prinabhrt here, because in addition to the semantically closely related cxpression pranin what has to be taken into account is the similar

Page #9
A. WEZLER SANSKRIT PRANABHRT 409 6. 10. 11. problem whether, and if so, how pranabhrt is semantically distinguished from pafu, which latter word is translated by Bohtlingkas "Hausthier" and as "Opferthier', in one case. But if this is really the meaning of pasu in the Astadhyayi, why docs Panini then use the expression grarreyapafu in order to exclude wild animals, in 1.2.73?" A more plausible conclusion would seem to be that pasu means "animal", both domestic and wild." Provided that our basic assumption is correct, viz. that Panini thoroughly observes semantical distinctions and strictly avoids the use of synonyms, the solution which suggests itself now, and as a most natural one at that, is that pranabht refers to animals which are of foremost importance for man in that they 'support his life", i.e. to "domestic animals', as has been suspected already at the outset. Bohtlingk's translation of 5.1.129 is, however, exemplary at least in one regard, viz. in that he omits the definite article. For, what Panini quite evidently wants to say is that the secondary suffix is added not to the designations of domestic animals, but - to some of them, the only examples being afvam and ausfram. But even with regard to presentday India, it would be correct to say that horses and camels still belong to those animals on which the life of many a human being depends. However, I am afraid, the presence or absence of the concept pranablurt, in Vedic times and modern India respectively, has but very little influence on the manner in which members of these species are treated: in practice a matter of fact anthropocentrism has held and still holds sway! But the Vedic Indians at least have been aware of it, and admitted it with winning, albeit naive, frankness - a trait this which my friend Jan C. Heesterman will have perceived long ago and reacted to with sympathy.26 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. The reference is to the sentence prdnigrahanam eva na krtam vaicitrydrtham in the Padamanjari on Kas on Pan. 5.1.129. C. Pan. 242, 43,135; 154; 23.17; 245; 5.497; 6.2134(); 6.3.7 and 8.3.72. (Note that in S.M. Katre's Dictionary of Sanskrit, 3 Pls., Poona 1968, the references 2.3.2 and 3.3.17 are incorrect.) Cl. also Pan. 5.2.96 and 128. Cl. G.A. Jacob, Laukikanydyddjalih. A Handful of Popular Maxims.... PL. 1, Bombay 1907, p. 38. Note that in CV two sutras, viz. 3.3.104 (rksausidbhyo me ca) and 105 (pranibhyo ), correspond to Pan. 4.3.135. C. MBhasya III 232.1 and 318.261. I have dealt with this passage in my article "Paralipomena zum Sarvasarvatmakatvavada. (1). Mahabhasya zu Pan. 4.3.155 und scine einheimischen Erklarer', WZKS XXVI (1982), 149-166. On this word see H. Luders, Philologica Indica..., Gottingen 1940, p. 17701. Note that here I ignore words which have already been mentioned. On this sutra cf. Oberlies, o.c. (fm. 5), p. 82. C. Kasika on 4.3.154. In the Kas on the sitra discussed in the MBhasya, viz. on Pan. 5.4.68, the secondary noun kofanisadini is merely mentioned among others, and Haradatta too does not offer any help in that he confines himself to giving the vigrala of the basic dvandva (kofaf ca nisac ca). Cr. the meaning "cover, covering altested for kofa also according to BJ. Sandesara's and J.P. Thaker's Lexicographical Studies in 'Jaina Sanskrit', Baroda 1962, p. 123. It has, however, to be admitted that his explanation kofanisadam asyd asti (dvandopardpagarhyat prdnisthad inir bhavati) could be based on nothing but a correct linguistic analysis of the formation of kofanisadini and that he himself did not any longer know the mcaning of the word. The examples given in the Kas. (on 5.2.128) to explain this word of the sitra, viz. kakudavarti and kakataluki, can equally not be styled as fully understandable. Cf. Oberlies, o.c. (fn. 5), p. 236. a. Pan. 2.4.8 ksudrajantavah. In Panini jantu could well be the corresponding generic term for'animal (in general)". The meanings given in the Larger Petrograd Dictonary for the dtmanepada in particular are "sich schnell hinbewegen", 'mit sich nehmen; fur sich davon tragen, gewinnen". These compounds could casily be identified with the help of the Reverse Index of Old Indian (Wiesbaden 1974-78) or the Inder II (Ab Ultimo) of the Consolidated Indices of the VaidikaPaddrukrama-Kopa (Hoshiapur 1965). On these compounds c. also Wackernarel-Debrunner, Altindische Commatik II 2, Gottingen 18. 19. NOTES 20. 21. 22. Panini's Grammatik..., Leipzig 1887, repr. Hildesheim 1964. The Ashfadhyayi of Panini... 2 Vols., Allahabad 1891, repr. DelhiVaranasi-Patna 1962. La Granimaire de Panini..., 2 Vols, Paris 1966. Asfadhydy of Panini... Austin 1987, first Indian ed. DelhiVaranasi (ctc.) 1989. Regarding the difference of authors of the Sotra and the Vrtti on them see now: Th. Oberlies, Studie zum Candravydkarana. Eine kritische Bearbeitung von Candra IV.4.52-148 und V.2, Stuttgart 1989, and his article "Verschiedene neu-entdeckte Texte des Candravydkarana und ihre Verfasser (Studien zum Candrayydkarana II)" to be published in Sill 16/17 (1992).

Page #10
A. WEZLER SANSKRIT PRANABHRT 44. 25. 46. 47. 50. 1954, p. 17 and 25. As for the syntax, I take prdnablstah to be used predicatively here and would hence translate it literally "in as much as they are supporters of breath'. The Veda of the Black Yajur School entitled Taittiriya Sanhita..., Pt. I (HOS 18), Cambridge, Mass. 1914, p. 255. Cf. R.P. Das, Das Wissen von der Lebensspanne der Baume. Surapalas Viksdiyurveda ... Stuttgart 1988, pp. 284[f., 289, 324, 444, 446 and 450. C. W. Caland, 'Eine dritte Mitteilung uber das Vadhulasutra" in 40 IV (1926), p. 162 = Kleine Schriften hrsg. von M. Witzel, Stuttgart 1990, p. 345. The fact that the indicative is used, and not another mood, does not, of course, diminish the probability that what is ultimately intended is a plea (the essential difference being that the indicative expresses the idea that the plea has already being fulfilled: hope dressed as certitude, a significant element of religious speech). Cr. Wackernagel-Debrunner, Altindische Grammatik III - Gottingen 1931, p. 65. As for parallel passages, cf. Brahmanoddhara-kosah (Brahmanic Citations) ....Hoshiapur 1966, p. 96. Cf.eg. the book just mentioned in fn. 31. p.93ff. Cf. also SB 8.1.2.11. Eg. SB 8.2.3.1ff. Cf. Kahs 20.9 and Kap 31.11. This is Keith's translation, o... (fn. 26), p. 415. On which see also SB 5.3.2.2(.). Note that according to Wackernagel-Debrunner, Altindische Grammatik II.2. p. 412f. this name is however derived from apas, 'work'. Cr. also MS 3.2.8 and Kaths 20.9. This is a basically correct zoological observation as the normal sequence of steps of terrestrial vertebrates) is right foreleg, left hind leg, left foreleg. right hind leg of. D. Muller-Schwarze, "Fortbewegung bei Tieren" in: Praktikum der Verhaltensforschung. hrsg. von Stokes u. Immelmann, Frankfurt-New York 1978, p. 8-14. That is to say, I don't think that pranabhrt was coined as an insider word for a colcrie of the Icarned. Scce.g. the passages discussed above in section 2.1. The Aitareya Aranyaka..., Oxford 1909, p. 216. Who explains: - osadhivanaspatinam annatam pranabhrtam manusegavisvadinami bhoktfam , ca loke prasiddham iti dyolayitur hifabdahl. The spacing is mine. - Note that eg. TS 2.2.6.3 shows that the expression ubhayadat as such may refer to man, too, but that its (narrower) meaning is made clear here by the subsequent punisasyanuvidhd vihitas. Cr. also, though rather with regard to later developments of the dichotomy "food" and 'eater', R. Geib's article "Food and Eater in Natural Philosophy of Early India', JORI, Baroda, XXV, 3-4 (1976), 221-235. Quoted from A.B. Keith, o.c. (n. 41), p. 216f. C. e.g. R.N. Dandekar's contribution ("Der Mensch im Denken des Hinduismus") to the book Sein als Offenbaring in Christentum und Hinduismus, hrsg. v. A. Bstch, Modling 1984, p. 139-179. Although man is conspicuous by his absence on the next, i.e. third, level (for which see the continuation of the passage quoted by me). Should one perhaps read amtam instead? On which cf. K.R. Norman, "Eleven Pali Etymologies', JPTS XV (1987), p. 396. and L. Schmithausen's monograph "Plants as Sentient Beings in Earliest Buddhism published 1991 in Tokyo by The International Institute for Buddhist Studies; see also below fn. 65. Quite in contradistinction to the corresponding word in Pali. Cf. c.g. also Mahabharata (Poona) 12.326.34: na vind dhdusarghatam sariram bhavati kvacit/ na ca jivan vina brahman dhatavaf cestayanty utall. of the passages referred to in the Larger Petrograd Dictionary it is the following ones which have to be mentioned in this connection: Susrutasamhita I 175.3 (ie. Sutrasthana 45.48), Spruche): 2599 and 3709, Varah. BS 7.5 and Prabodhacandrodaya 35.18 (= 232). Man alone is, however, meant in Spruche) 1299 and Varah. BS 67.97 (68.96). ar. also Yuktidipika (ed. Pandeya), p. 8 1. 261:... yeyam asati visese sarvapranabhrtdm durereva bhagavato duhkhatrayabhighatabuddhir bhavati ... where the meaning "man'. even if it is not the only one intended, is yet what the author primarily has in view; cf. also YD p. 38 L. 17. Varah, BS 8.14 could be referred to here; yet Manu 5.28 has to be mentioned, too, in that it reads: pranasyannam idam sarvam prajapatir akalpayat sthavaran jarigaram caiva sarvani pranasya bhojanam II. (It has only been briefly mentioned by L. Alsdorf, Beitrage zur Geschichte von Vegetarismus und Rindervereining in Indien, Wiesbaden 1962, p. (20) = 576, but would in my view deserve closer a study.) 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 52 53. 54. 39. 55. 40. 41.

Page #11
412 A. WEZLER SANSKRIT PRANABHRT 413 56. 75. 76. Note that the expression kaurijaran. "a particular method of sitting" which Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, is rather an adjective to which asana has to be added by association. In my view pranablirt at Manu 8.295 and 296 also does not include man; but the problems posed by these two verses, or rather, the whole section 8.293-296, have to be reserved for another occasion. 60. 61. 62. 63. 65. Katre's rendering of tisya is problematic at least as regards the clymology on which see B. Forssman, 'Apaosa, der Gegner des Tistriia', KZ 82 (1968), p. 37-61. Cf. Paribhasa 34 in Nagesa's Paribhasendusekhara (ed. Kielhorn p. 591., transl. Kielhorn p. 171ff.) and see Kaitata's Pradipa (NSPed.) II 70 a 5ff. Cf. also Nagesa's Uddyota (NSP-ed.) II 70 a 29-31: na hy etesv iti I apomayah prana (ChU 6.7.1] iti sruter adbhir vina glayamanaprana eva loke pranina ilyucyante, idam eva pujyalvani bhasye 'irabhavacchabdenocyata iti bhava) 11. The reference is to the NSP-edition. Uddyota II 70 a 31f.: loke prana iti vyavaharasyapy abhavad aha - tadadhineti I. For I do not want to contend that the semantic development which is clearly recognizable, can only be accounted for by this assumption. Especially because the context is that of the lack of respect which is due to God Vayu. Brhadaranjakopanishad in der Madhjasidina-Recension, St. Petersburg 1889, p. 38. CI. SB(K) 3.2.10.2. Note that in early Pali verses panabhu | bhuta means "living being" (cf. Vin. I 3.27ff.*, AN III 213.21*), but that human beings (Ja V 79.17ff.*), men and women (JA IV 494.26ff.*) and plants (Sn 146) are included or may be referred even to in the first place. Cf. ChU 6.7.1 for the idiom pranam vi-cchid. It is not at all probable that one and the same word should denote lizards in general and a very peculiar family of the infraordo. Inguania at the same time. But I can't enter here into a discussion of the meaning of krkalasa. O.c. (fn. 62), p. 18. Scil. mrtyoh! Read yebhir? Viz. in 2.4.12, 3.2.25, 3.3.69, 1.2.73 and 5.3.51 respectively. The discussion of the sulra in the Mbhasya is of particular interest in that it allows us to look at the actual treatment of cattle in those days (1 252.13/s.): ayam api yogah sakyo 'vaktum / katham gava imas caranti aja imas caranti I gava ulkalitapumska vahaya ca vikrayaya ca / striya evavafisyante /! Quite evidently Panini uses the expression gramyapasu and not pranabhi, because the difference between domestic and wild (forms of animals is of relevance here and because the character common to both is not denoted by pranablint. Sce section 1.2 above. 66. 67. 70. 72. 73. 74.