________________
178
Dr. Sharma felicitation Vol.
"is the sustaining cause of the other two" rather adds to the confusion at least at first sight. On closer inspection, however, it becomes apparent that the fact that one and the same entities are first said to be the dhṛtikarana "of all padarthas" and then the sustaining cause "of cach other", is the clue to the solution of the problem: What the Vivaraṇakara obviously means is that animal" etc. bodies are in so far the sustaining cause of all padarthas as they sustain each other by various means, and it is only due to this mutual support that these bodies themselves exist and subsist; yet their existence and subsistence form also the necessary precondition for unfolding their specific activities on which in their turn depend "all the things" of this world, be they 'natural', man-made or god-made.
This interpretation is not only plausible in itself, but it is also confirmed by the text of the Bhasya-as construed by the Vivaranakara, for afterall, it is the reason that is stated when it is said that "these bodies serve each the purpose of the others' (paraspararthatvät). The author of the Vivarana hence seems to draw a distinction between the totality of bodies as such beginning with that of the demiurg Brahma and ending with those of plants, on the one hand, and "animal and human divine bodies", on the other. Whereas all bodies of whatever kind support each other and thus function mutually as cause of sustentation, those of aninals, men and gods are distinguished by the fact that by supporting each other in this manner they are at the same time the sustaining cause of all theother-things of this world which owe their existence solely to these three highest classes of living beings.
One need not be a biologist or ecologist in order not to miss the enormous significance both these ideas undoubtedly have, quite apart from their importance for our knowledge and understanding of the Samkhya and Yoga systems. For what is testified to in them is a conception of 'nature' which not only comprises human beings as well as plants, bat is also a complex whole which is essentially and basically characterized by a mutual dependence of the diffrent classes and species of living beings, i. c. by the fact that each of the
Patanjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa
179
various "bodily" beings irrespective of its place within the given. hierarchy is dependent on others for its very existence and subsistence, though it should not be overlooked that the author of the Vivarana when speaking of animals evidently thinks of domestic cattle only. It has probably gotten around in the meantime that western civilization has almost totally neglected this old truth and that it is only now, viz. when faced with the disastrous results of its suicidal shortsightedness, that it is re-discovering it, though, of course, on the basis of a distinctly different conception, and stage of development, of 'natural' sciences.
Wezler
5. It is. however, the concluding sentences of the Vivarana passage quoted above to which I want to draw particular attention here, viz. evam varṇāśramaṇām apy anyonyopakāreņa dhṛtikaranatvam parasparopäśrayena hi jagad akhilam api dhri yate . As in many other instances of commentarial explanations going beyond a mere paraphrase of the elements of the mula text, one is faced here too with the elementary, yet nonetheless intricate problem whether one may look upon what is said by the commentator as a faithful interpretation of the ideas of the Bhāṣyakāra, or at least of what he meant to imply, or whether one has to do with an entirely new idea of the Vivaraṇakāra himself. I do not see any possibility of reaching an objective decision in the present case ;** but this much can be said without provoking the reproach of arbitrary interpretation: What is stated by the author of the Vivarana in these two sentences perfectly agrees with the Bhasyakara's explanation of dartikarana: at worst, it has to be styled as the outcome of thinking congenially along the very lines of the Bhasya.
Ignoring in what follows the final sentence, for it forms but a generalizing, albeit emphatic and impressive résumé of the contents of the passage taken together. let me concentrate on the first sentence. It refers not only to the four varnas, i.e. the wellknown division of Indian society into Brahmanas, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and Sadras (which was not merely a theoretical concept,