________________
440
THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN
In
Although the identity of those who decidedly voted in favour of the first interpretation is not clarified by Nageśa and even a pronominal expression like kecit or pare is absent-which would clearly point in the one direction or the other, as shown by Thieme 22-the reason adduced, viz. bhāṣyasvarasāt, is of such a kind that no doubt is left as to Nageśa's own position: case he did not agree with these unnamed scholars, he could hardly have let pass their argument unchallenged! Less clear, however, is what exactly is meant by svarasa. This expression-as well as its derivation svārasya-would no doubt deserve a thorough examination, especially with regard to the Uddyota (and other works of Nageśa's). But such an investigation cannot be undertaken here, nor would it seem to be absolutely necessary; for, whatever its result may be, this much is clear even now: the reason is not a particular one, does not refer concretely and directly to the problem at issue, viz. the meaning of the examples given in the Bh.
There is another Paniniya who, though commenting on the Bh. itself, voices his opinion without any ifs and buts, viz. Śivarāmendrasarasvati, for what he says is (Mahābhāṣyasiddhāntaratnaprakāśa 326. 26 f.)23: bhakşayanti yavān iti | kṣetrasthānām aṁkurādyavasthānām yavānām bhakṣaṇād dhimsā bhavati, teṣām api cetanatvāt. According to him there is hence only one possibility to interpret the example: By eating the barley plants, still in the state of sprouts, an act of himsă is committed because they are sentient beings. The only problem posed by his
