________________
CATTLE, FIELD AND BARLEY
451
does not in the least help to solve the problem at issue, viz. a substantiated option between these two alternative and mutally exclusive interpretations. On the contrary, now that the implications and the background of the second interpretation have been understood, it appears to be even more difficult than before to advance reasons against its not also being what Patañjali actually had in mind.
450 THE ADYAR "LIBRARY BULLETIN king is to play, and this not as an impartial judge, but significantly enough as the head of the state who himself and for his own benefit takes a vital interest in the crop yield. The idea that plants are sentient beings or could be regarded as such is not only mentioned nowhere in these passages, but the sources referred to also breathe a quite different spirit which would make it appear impossible that an idea like that of the cetanatva of plants could have noticeably impressed their authors. This is definitely not what they are concerned with, and they are not even worried about the freedom from injury of men and animals; on the contrary, doing bodily harm to beings whose: cetanatva is a commonly accepted fact is even one of the punishments they prescribe or recommend.55
On the other hand, so it might be objected and rightly at that, the Dharmaśāstra material drawn upon just now is evidence of the fact that the eating of crops by cattle was in fact considered a damage in India, most probably since of old, and even if vi-hirs were not attested in M. 8. 238 in such a context, there can hardly be any doubt that damage (to crops ) is covered by the expression himsa, too.56. Therefore, if it is because of the existence of this legal area that Kaiyata and other Paniniya-s allow for the second interpretation of Patañjali's examples-and, to be sure it cannot be dis- puted that this is in fact, the main reason , the striking difference of the second from the first interpretation in terms of its conceptual, intellectual and ethical ambience
though it was legitimate, even necessary to observe it
There is at least one passage in the Bh. regarding which there cannot be the least doubt that it has to do with the problem of the damage caused by cattle to crops, and it will certainly be useful to examine it, too. It is found at the very beginning of the discussion of Pān. 1. 4. 27 (väranärthanam ipsitah) according to which in the case of actions denoted by verbs meaning "ward off" [that too is technically called apadana] which [an agent] wishes to reach / obtain'. The question about an example for the operation of this rule-and hence about the necessity of teaching it—with which the discussion starts (I 328. 10: kim udāharanam/) is answered by adducing the sentence masebhyo gå vårayati, 'he keeps the cows away from the beans [in the field]';. the discussion is then continued thus (1 328. 10-12): bhaved yasya masa na gävas tasya māşi ipsitäh syuh / yasya tu khalu gavo na mäşa katham tasya máså ipsitäh syuk / tasyapi maşa edepsitāḥ / ataś cepsită yad ebhyo gå varayati Il.' It may be that for the person who owns the beans, but not the cows, the beans (in the field] are something which
