________________
466
THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN
CATTLE, FIELD AND BARLEY
467
* I am aware of the fact that this expression refers to certain intellectual faculties (e.g. faculty of perception, viz. ekendriyatua etc.) rather than to the mere fact of belonging to the class of living beings. But since the distinction between these two aspects does not play any role in the material drawn upon by me, it is totally neglected in the present article.-Cf. however p. 316 (377) and fn. 5 in P. Thicme's article 'Beseelung in Sprache, Dichtung und Religion' in: Paideuma, Mitteilungen zur Kulturkunde, VII (1960), pp. 31324 Kleine Schriften, Wiesbaden 1971 (reprinted 1984), pp. 374-85.
5 These include also c.g. the Jainendravyákarana and Hemacandra's Sabdanudsana; but I thought it advisable to keep my own investigation within the limits of the Pāņiniyan tradition only.
• On this interpretation and that of the navinas cf. e.g. Gokulanåtha Upadhyāya's Padavákyaratnakara (cd. together with Yadunatha Misra's Gadharthadifika by Nandinātha Misra, Sarasvati Bhavana Granthamala, Vol. 88, Varanasi 1960), pp. 597 ff.
Reference is, of course, to the edition of F. Kielhorn (Poona 1962").
• Uddyota II 275 a 29 (the edition I use is that of the NS Press): värttike pratisedha iti Sesah II.
Yudhisthir Mimämsak (Patailjali-viracitam Mahabhd syam Hindi-uyakhyaya sahitam, dvitiyo bhāgah, Dilli, vi. sam 2029, p. 504) takes pindi to denote a particular sweet dish (pindi-pinni misfanna višes); yet, the problematic derivation of Hindi pinni apart, there is, as far as I can see, no evidence whatsoever that this word is used here in a meaning different from that listed in our dictionaries, viz. 'ball of rice' or even more generally 'lump of food.'
10 The opinion of the authors of the Petrograd Dictionary, viz. that yava denoted in the earliest times probably any grain or corn yielding flour or meal', if acceptable at all, is definitely not valid for the time of Patanjali. Cf. also fn. 65.
11 Reference is, of course, also to the NS Press edition. 1° Uddyota II 275 a 28f.: bhakseh pratyavasánarthatsat prdpribl.
13 cf. also the Paņini ya-Dhatupatha 10. 22 bhakşa adane (which is identical with 1. 941, but it is, of course, the root bhaks as forming its present stem by adding -aya-, that is used by Patañjali).
14 cf. Pån. 2. 3. 56 and Candra-utti on 2. 1. 95 as well as Pān. 6. 1. 141 (together with Sisupalauadha 1.47).
15 cf. vårtt. 2 on Pan. 1. 3. 15.
cf Pån. 3. 4. 48 and Candra 1. 3. 140 as well as vårtt. 2 on Pāṇ. 3. 4. 37.
17 The edition referred to is K.A. Subramania Iyer's Vakyapadiye of Bharthari with the commentary of Helaraja, Kända III, Part 1, (Deccan College Monograph Series 21), Poona 1963.
" Which, of course, it is not, as becomes obvious already by the fact that Helaraja thought it necessary to explain just this occur. rence of a form of kafcit.
This holds good likewise for the observations made by Thieme with reference to Nägesa; cf. his article. The Interpretation of the Learned' in: Felicitation Volume presented to S. K. Belvalkar, Benares 1957, p. 50 fn. 2= kleine Schriften, Wiesbaden 1971, (reprinted 1984), p. 599 fn. 2.
20 I quote from M. S. Narasimhacharya (ed.), Mahabhasya Pradipa Vydkhyanani IV, Adhyâya 1 pâda 2-4, Pondichéry 1977.
"Någesa seems to have given preference to the reading bhaksayati while Kielhorn places it in the critical apparatus attached to his edition. The fact that most of the later Papiniya-s obviously knew this reading only, does not help much to solve this textcritical problem.
* cf. the article mentioned in fn. 13.
As for the edition used sce fn. 20.
* As in many other cases, the fact that a particular vårtt. of Katyayana's is not refuted by Patañjali is here also taken into account by Candragomin by introducing a corresponding sutra into his own grammar. This is 2. 1. 49 bhakser akimsiyam which is explained in his Vrtti thus (ed. B. Licbich, Leipzig 1918, p. 104 C.): bhakser ahimsarthasya prayojye kartari doitiya n bharati. bhakşayati pindin Devadattma. ahimsiyam iti kim? bhakşayati balioardan sasyam...
* Or is this replacement perhaps due to the wish to avoid the misunderstanding that the act of himsd has something to do with the particular variety of cereal plants, viz. barley, mentioned by Patañjali? Or was it one of the interpreters concerned first of all only with the legal aspect (see below $ 3) who deemed it better to
