________________
452
.
THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN
he wishes to obtain. But as for the person who owns the cows and not the beans, how/ why should the beans be for him something which he wishes to obtain ?57—For him also the beans are doubtless58 something which he wishes to obtain (i.e. to preserve), and to be more precise, they are something which he wishes to obtain (i.e. which he does not wish to be destroyed) because he keeps the cows away from them.'50
Though this counter argument is valid, it is not on the level of the Bh. alone absolutely clear why the herdsman or the owner of the cattle keeps them away from the beans: Because he does not want the beans to be injured since they are living beings or because he is afraid of the legal consequences of his cattle causing damage to the beans belonging to somebody else ? In this case, however, the commentators do not entertain any doubts, but are unanimously of the opinion that it is only the latter reason which can be meant here. Thus Kaiyata explains the question following immediately upon the Bh. passage quoted above viz. iha küpåd andham vårayatiti kūpe 'pädänasamjia na präpnoti... (I 328. 12 ff.) by explicitly stating (Pradipa II 251 b 16 f.) küpād iti andhasambandha küpasya na vinäso napi rajabhayam iti prafnah // 'this question arises because in connection with a blind man [to be kept away from a well] neither can [that from which he is kept away, i.e.) the well, be destroyed nor [is there any reason] to be afraid of the king. The implication, of course, is that it is these very reasons which make the herdsman keep his cows
from the beans. And statements to the same
CATTLE, FIELD AND BARLEY 453 effect are found in the works of other commentators too.1
Yet, in the present case one is fortunately not at all dependent on the help of the commentators, for Patañjali himself leaves his readers in no doubt about the correct interpretation of the example he has given at the very outset of his discussion of Pån 4.1.27. For, after having discussed this and some more examples he finally voices the opinion that this sutra of Pånini's-like others following upon 1.4.24-need not be taught at all (I 328.21: ayam api yogah fakyo 'vaktum); this contention quite naturally provokes the question: katham mäsebhyo gå vårayatiti, i.e. how the use of the ablative in this and similar sentences can then be accounted for. The answer to it runs thus (1 328. 21-24): paśyaty ayam yadimå gavas tatra gacchanti dhruvar sasyavināšah sasyavinäse 'dharmas caida räjabhayam ca sa ca buddhya samprapya nivartayati tatra dhruvam apaye 'padanam [Pāņ 1. 4. 24] ity eva siddham/. 'Hc (i.c. the herdsman who keeps the cows away) sees (i.e. considers 2) that, if these, cows do get there (i.c. into the field), the crop will be certainly destroyed, and if the crops is destroyed this means a breach of the prescribed conduct as well as that he must] fear (punishment] by the king. [Thus) he turns [his cows] away [from the field which they have not actually reached, but which) he has made them reach in his mind (i.e. which he conceives them he
to have reached)." This being so, the correct result (viz. the application of the term apadana to the word denoting 'beans in the field'] is simply achieved by Pan. 1.4.24.'
