________________
460
THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN
when he speaks of the view that 'sarve sacetană bhāvāḥ (cf. § 2. 5. 2 above). Indeed, it is perfectly understandable that in later times it was either Jainism or perhaps still Samkhya70 also which came to an Indian's mind when the idea was spoken of or seemed to be alluded to that the whole world or at least not only animals, but plants too are animate." It is therefore no wonder at all that already Kaiyața thought it necessary to point out that the caitanya of plants is not commonly accepted, but forms part of the doctrine of 'some' or 'certain' people (... kaiścic caitanyasyabhyupagamät/; cf. § 2. 3 above). On the other hand, this remark is quite interesting for two more reasons:
6. 3.
Thanks to it, it becomes now clear that apart from, or rather in addition to, the reason adduced above (§ 3. 2) for so many Paniniya-s being unable to decide in favour of one interpretation only, a historical factor has to be taken into account too, viz. that at their time it was a particular group of people only which was associated with such a view of animateness and hence also of himsä, a group with which it is rather difficult to imagine that Patanjali was in sympathy as to its doctrines. And indeed, the reluctance of Kaiyața and his 'followers' to content themselves with the first interpretation is not only understandable, but also justified at least in so far as a particular grammatical phenomenon of the Sanskrit language as the medium of communication of all (educated) people can in fact not be accounted for by
CATTLE, FIELD AND BARLEY
461
taking recourse to the doctrine of a group which forms but a small and rather peripherical minority among those speaking Sanskrit. At the latest it is at this point of our deliberations that it becomes evident that Kaiyata's first interpretation has for this very reason to be accepted as the only correct one, i.e. as that which alone meets Patanjali's intention. Kaiyața's main weakness is that he lacks sensibility to historical changes. Not even the suspicion could thus have arisen in him that at the time of Patanjali himself the situation might have been still a different one! This is why he was unable to arrive at the conclusion we on our part cannot but finally draw, viz. that at the time when the distinction between the two constructions of the causative verb bhakṣayati actually developed in Sanskrit it was still common belief that plants and seeds are living beings, perhaps even that 'the whole world is animate'.
Whether Kätyāyana and Patanjali were still familiar with this view as such cannot be decided with absolute certainty," but for all we know about their respective dates and about the origin and historical development of the ahimsa doctrine, there is every likelihood that at their time the consumption not only of seeds capable of germination, but also of plants was widely considered as himsă, 'injury to living beings'.
The highly interesting material which Schmithausen has recently collected from Buddhist texts and discussed in some detail, cannot be used as a comparison in the present article. Yet there is one point to which attention has nevertheless to be drawn in this connection, and it
