________________
464
THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN
to be more precise, that what alone counted with regard to an action's falling under himsä or ahimsa was according to him nothing but the question whether the plant forming its object is still alive or already dead: What I have in mind is the passage II 176. 7f. where it is asked with regard to värtt. 2 on Pan. 3. 4. 37: asti punar ayam kvacid dhantir ahimsarthaḥ yadartho vidhiḥ syat, 'but is this [root] han ever used as denoting non-injury so that a prescription is needed for it (i.e to safeguard the formation of the absolutive in -am)?'; and the answer is: astity aha panyupaghatam vedim hanti, 'I say yes, it is in fact [used in this sense, too, e.g. if it is said] "He strikes the vedi (i.e. he makes it flat and firm) by striking with the hand upon it". The editors of the NSP edition of the Bh. are perfectly right in explaining in a foot-note (III 266 b) pranaviyogānukülavyāpāro hi himsă, să ca vedyam nästiti bhavaḥ; but they could have added that the action denoted by han does not, in the present case, constitute an act of himsă because the Kuśa grass which is strewn over the vedi is already dead since it was plucked, and this action of injury is over.78
:: As for the counter example given by Patanjali in his discussion of Pan. 1. 4. 52, it cannot but be realized that the fact that eating is an act of himsä, has nothing to do with its particular object, the barley plants. However, one should also not lose sight of the fact that the question of the ethical evaluation of this act of himsă does not arise at all, or rather is by no means in the foreground. What Patanjali wanted to do was to adduce convincing and clear examples for the use of the
CATTLE, FIELD AND BARLEY
causative verb bhakṣayati when used ahimsartha in contradistinction to its being used himsartha; and it cannot, I think, be disputed that he did achieve his aim. However, whether by giving precisely these and no other examples and counter examples he wanted to intimate in additon that men, or at least certain people, are able strictly to avoid any himsă (by leaving the unavoidable killing to others), whereas for cattle the very process of living means continuously committing injury to other living beings or whether Patanjali at least thought of this distinction, will most probably remain a question which can never be answered.
465
NOTES
1 Acaryaśrisiddhasenadiväkarapraṇitam Sammatitarkaprakaraṇam, Jainasvetämbara-rajagacchiyapradyumnasürisisya - tarkapañcananasrimad - Abhayadevasarinirmitayd Tattvabodhavidhayinya vyakhyaya vibhusitam ...päthäntara-tippanyddibhiḥ parişkṛtya samsodhitam, Gujaratapuratattvamandira, Amadābād, samvat 1980-1985. Reprinted Kyoto 1984.-I am not sure whether it is this edition which is referred to as no. 2294 in Karl H. Potter, Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. Bibliography (Revised Edition), Delhi 1983.
What I have in view here is, of course, in the first place, H. Lüders' famous article 'Die Saubhikas. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des indischen Dramas', originally published in: BSB 1916, pp. 698-737 and reprinted in: Philologica Indica, Göttingen 1940, pp. 391-428.
This expression is clearly used here in the general meaning of 'plant' and not as a technical term by which the Indian 'botanists' etc. distinguish 'trees which bear fruit without having flowered' from 'trees which bear fruits after having flowered', 'creepers" and 'shrubs'; cf. e.g. Manu 1. 47 f.
30
