________________
448
THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN
(M. 8. 238), echoed by tadbhaksana in Bharuci's commentary and paraphrased similarly by bhaks in Kulluka's Manvarthamuktavali;48 (sasya-)upaghata (Bharuci on M..8. 239 and 241; cf. Haradatta on Gaut. 12. 19 and Vijñanesvara on Y. 2. 160); (sasya-)ghata (Vi. 2. 159); pid (Gaut. 12. 19-2. 3. 16; Haradatta on 12. 21 and 23); (sarva-)vinaša (Gaut. 12. 26-2. 3. 23); (sasya-)nāśa (Vi. 5. 140; cf. 5. 146 and Nandapanḍita on Vi. 5.140 ff.; Y. 2. 161 and Vijñānesvara on this and the following verses); aparādha (e.g. Maskari on Gaut. 12. 23; Vijñānesvara in Y. 2. 160) adin (Ap. 2. 28. 5., explained by Haradatta to be equivalent to sasyäder bhakṣapitr), etc. etc..
What is noteworthy in the first place is the interchangeability of vi-hims and bhaks. That the action denoted by bhaks does not, however, necessarily imply complete destruction is indicated by Nandapandita on Vi. 5. 147 in drawing a corresponding distinction (... yasya ksetre yavat sasyam pašavo bhakṣayanti näsayanti vā...); and it is clearly what Haradatta had in mind when in explaining the expression sarvavinase of Gaut. 12. 26 he says: yatha punahpraroho na bhavati tatha (sarvavinase), i.e. when he makes clear that 'complete destruction' is meant; still more explicit seems to be Vijñānesvara's remark, made with reference to När. 11. 31, viz. that this sutra is punaḥprarohayogyamülāvašeṣabhakṣaṇaviṣaya, though a reader familar with agriculture might wonder where on earth a member of the bovine species could eat more than the epigeous parts of a plant and what value e.g. barley plants should have once they have been
CATTLE, FIELD AND BARLEY
449
eaten bare to the roots, even if the sprouted again."9 Yet, be that as it may, by the two expressions in question and the others also quoted above one may indeed by given the idea that it is this type of damage to crops that Patanjali had in mind with his example. And the subject of the Dharmasastra texts drawn upon is in fact the damage caused by cattle to the crops belonging to somebody else, as is also made clear, though rather superfluously, by the commentators, e.g. Vijñānesvara on Y. II 159 by adding para- in paraphrasing sasyaghatasya karinis1 of the verse, or by Nandapandita when introducing his explanations on Vi. 5. 141 ff. by the general remark: paśubhiḥ parasasyanaše dandam äha, etc.52
3.2.
However, good care has, of course, to be taken not to draw premature conclusions from such similarities. in expressions. For what is exactly meant by a particular expression like upa-han, pid etc. in each case is clearly determined, if not totally, then at least to a large extent, by the wider content in which it stands and how the section in which it is found is systematically organized. And regarding the Dharmasastra passages referred to above nobody will fail to realize, even when only starting to go through them, that their authors were interested in but one thing, viz. in the material damage caused by cattle; the questions of guilt and penalty for the material loss; the owner's title to compensation which cannot be denied (in certain cases); and specifically the role the
29
