________________ 476 THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN CATTLE, FIELD AND BARLEY 477 thorough study) which was kindly pointed out to me by Dr. C. Kiehnle. In Pradhan's translation (ed. by H. M. Lambert, Bombay 1948, p. 45) the verse (13. 285) reads thus: 'He does not walk over a blade of grass, as there is life within it...'. 77 0.c. (cf. fn. 55), p. 127. 78 It is admittedly not possible to rule out in the present case with absolute certitude that what Patanjali refers to is the vedi on which no barhis has yet been spread. In fact what Sayana on SPB 1. 2. 5. 18 calls vedimarjana might consist in or comprise a panyupaghata. On the other hand, if Patanjali's example were taken in this sense, one would have to make the assumption, not unproblematic in itself, that Patanjali did not regard the element earth as animate, i.e. did not even in a ritual context keep to the ancient view (which is variously attested to among others in the passage of the SPB just mentioned (see e.g. 1.2.5. 10 and 23 ff.)). As for the different types of vedi-s etc., cf. now H. Krick, Das Ritual der Feuergrundung (Agnyadheya) ed. by G. Oberhammer, Wien 1982, pp. 109 ff. gamat / yadva 'dradyam bahiscarak prana" iti smaranat sasya-bhaksanena sasyasvamino himsa bhavatiti bodhyam 11. 9 But vartt. 15 on Pan. 3.1.7 (sarvasya va сetanatvät) and the Bh. on it may also be taken as strong evidence for this assumptioninspite of Kaiyata who (Pradipa III 29 b 8) refers to the atmadvaitadarsana as the alleged doctrinal basis of this vartt. and inspite of Thiemc (cf. his article mentioned in fn. 4, pp. 141 ff.=380 ff.) whose verdict that this statement of Katyayana's is 'naive' is likewise unsatisfactory (though one will with less reluctance subscribe to Thieme's opinion that 'the use of an expression like kulam pipatisati is in no way calculated to suggest that the speaker adheres to an (animistic) world view'). It is, of course, true, as shown by Thieme, that Katyayana and Patanjali do indeed distinguish between cotana and acetana, but this does not affect the importance vartt. 15 on Pan. 3. 1. 7 has if it is placed in the wider context of the history of the conception of animateness in India. 78 Buddhismus und Natur' in: Die Verantwortung des Menschen fur eine bewchnbare Welt im Christentum, Hinduismus and Buddhismus, cd. by Raimundo Panikkar and Walter Strolz, Freiburg-BaselWien 1985, pp. 100-133. 76 cf. 1. c., p. 123.-It is quite important to note here that the observation made by Schmithausen with regard to the Buddhist tradition, viz. that the idea of the animateness of plants became quito insignificant in the course of time, is not only confirmed by the grammatical texts, at least in so far as they are drawn upon in the present paper, and by the study of H.-P. Schmidt's already referred to, but also most strikingly (though, of course, not in its diachronical dimension) by a remark of Cakrapanidatta's (to which my attention was kindly drawn by Dr. R.P. Das, a former student of mine); for whilc commenting on Caraka, Sutrasthana 27.3... annapanam - praninam praaisamjnakanam pranam acaksate kusalah, he says: praninam ity anenaiva labdho 'pi 'pranisamjnakanam iti dacanam , sthavarapranipratisedhartham; orksadayo hi vanaspatisattvanukaropadesac chastre pranina uktah; na tu loke pranisamjnakah, kim tarhi jangama eval. Cf. also fn: 68. 75 viz. I 137. 16 A similar idea is found expressed in a long excursus in the Franosvari on ahimsa (which for many reasons would deserve a
