________________
454
THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN
CATTLE, FIELD AND BARLEY
455
at least includes the eating of the beans in the field, only that it is viewed in this case exclusively under the aspect whether or not it is in accordance with dharma, i.e. the prescribed rules of conduct.
It is hence clear not only why the commentators are not at all uncertain as to the meaning of the passage I 328. 10-12, but also that Patañjali indeed thinks here of the material loss the cows may cause and of what such a sasyavinäsa would entail, viz. that a particular prescription of dharma is not followed and that the king may in accordance with the law punish the adharmika herdsman. It is beyond all doubt that the rajabhaya is caused by the breach of the prescribed conduct, but we must not lose sight of the fact that this relation is not expressed by Patañjali who instead connected the two corresponding expressions by caiva...ca. Therefore what was evidently of primary importance to him was to state that being responsible for a sasyavinasa has bad consequences in two respects, viz. in that apart from the eventual punishment (whether it be a fine or a corporal punishment) by the king, one is also defiled by adharma substance. Neither Patañjali himself nor his com- mentators has anything to say about the expression adharma used here, and indeed it does not seem to pose any difficulties: It is most naturally understood to denote the metaphysical consequence any action has by which a prescription of the dharma is offended against, and the Dharmaśāstra material referred to above admits of no doubt that the prevention of damage to crops was in fact considered to be an element of dharma. There is hence no need to suspect that the expression adharma perhaps refers to the injuring of the beans conceived of as living beings. On the other hand it is equally patent that what is meant by sasyavináša here
Yet, so it has to be asked, what are the conclusions that may be drawn from this passage of the Bh. with regard to the problems of interpretation posed by Bh. I 337. 24-27 discussed earlier?
(1) It bears evidence of Patanjali's being familiar, at least in substance, with what is taught in Dharmaśästra texts about 'damage to crops'; there is hence not even the slightest chance of arguing against the second interpretation of the example given in the discussion of Pan. 1. 4. 52 by contending that Patañjali cannot have had in mind the material loss because he did not know the relevant rules of Dharmaśāstra.
(2) On the other hand, the concept of himså, taken to mean injury done to a living being and to be sure this is in fact the implication of the first interpretation), is conspicuously absent here, i.e. in the discussion of Pān. 1. 4. 27: It is not only not mentioned, but also not even hinted at or presupposed. But what does this prove? Admittedly it does not prove anything, but it no doubt considerably adds to the impression which one cannot but gather when comparing these two passages as wholes, viz. that in the discussion of Pan. 1. 4. 27 Patañjali is only interested in the material loss whereas in the discussion of Pån. 1. 4. 52 what is of primary
