Cattle Field And Barley Note On Mahabhasya

SR No.: 269628
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler
Total Pages: 47
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 5 MB

Page 37

CATTLE, FIELD AND BARLEY
467
14 cf. Pan. 2. 3. 56 and Candra-vrtti on 2. 1. 95 as well as Pāņ. 6. 1. 141 (together with Siśupālavadha 1.47).
15 cf. vārtt. 2 on Pāṇ. 1. 3. 15.
16 cf Pāṇ. 3. 4. 48 and Candra 1. 3. 140 as well as vārtt. 2 on Pẫn. 3. 4. 37.
17 The edition referred to is K.A. Subramania Iyer's Vākyapadiya of Bhartrhari with the commentary of Helarāja, Kāņda III, Part 1, (Deccan College Monograph Series 21), Poona 1963.
18 Which, of course, it is not, as becomes obvious already by the fact that Helarāja thought it necessary to explain just this occurrence of a form of kaścit.'
19 This holds good likewise for the observations made by Thieme with reference to Nāgesa; cf.his article “ The Interpretation of the Learned' in: Felicitation Volume presented to S. K. Belvalkar, Benares 1957, p. 50 fn. 2 = Kleine Schriften, Wiesbaden 1971, (reprinted 1984), p. 599 fn. 2.
20 I quote from M. S. Narasimhacharya (ed.), Mahābhāsya Pradipa Vyākhyānāni IV, Adhyāya 1 Pāda 2-4, Pondichéry 1977.
21 Nāgesa seems to have given preference to the reading bhakşayati while Kielhorn places it in the critical apparatus attached to his edition. The fact that most of the later Pāņiniya-s obviously knew this reading only, does not help much to solve this textcritical problem.
22 cf. the article mentioned in fn. 13. 23 As for the edition used see fn. 20.
24 As in many other cases, the fact that a particular vārtt. of Kātyāyana's is not refuted by Patañjali is here also taken into account by Candragomin by introducing a corresponding sūtra into his own grammar. This is 2. 1. 49 bhakşer ahimsāyām which is explained in his Vștti thus (ed. B. Liebich, Leipzig 1918, p. 104 f.): bhakşer ahimsārthasya prayojye kartari dvitiyā na bhavati. bhakşayati pindim Devadattena. ahimsāyām iti kim? bhakşayati balivardān sasyam ...
.: 25 Or is this replacement perhaps due to the wish to avoid the misunderstanding that the act of himsä has something to do with the particular variety of cereal plants, viz. barley, mentioned by Patañjali? Or was it one of the interpreters concerned first of all only with the legal aspect (see below § 3) whó deemed it better to