________________
CATTLE, FIELD AND BARLEY
4:41
explanation is the motive for his adding api. . Did he thinklike Nāgesa of the grains of barley or else of men and animals as a group the cetanatva of which is a matter of course? I find it difficult to arrive at a decision. The real importance of this passage of the Ratnaprakāśa lies anyway in that its author shows himself so firmly convinced as regards the central problem, viz. in what the act of himsā essentially consists. But with all due deference to him, one cannot but ask: Why should we fall in with his opinion, especially as that of other Pāṇinīya-s differs from his ? -
2. 5.
es, there are still other Pāniniya-s whose testimony should likewise be taken, and one should definitely not make an arbitrary choice and summon only the commentators on the Bh. or those who wrote subcommentaries on their works.
2. 5. 1.
• From the Kāśikā not much is to be learnt, except perhaps for the fact that it shows that vārtt. 7 on Pāṇ. 1.4.52 was-together with many others on this sūtra-regarded as a necessary, indispensable addition by the Pāṇinian tradition, obviously from the times of Patañjali onwards. Another point worth noticing is that in the relevant counter examples the expression yavān is replaced by sasyam—a feature the Kāśikā has in common e.g. with the grammar of Candragomin 24 — for no apparent reason; for, it is by no means plain
