________________
442
that much is gained if 'barley [plants]' is changed into 'corn'.25
THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN
Haradatta's comment on the second example, however, is instructive at least in so far as it shows that it was not Kaiyața alone among the Pāṇiniya-s who decided to give two alternative interpretations and to leave the matter at that; for it reads thus (I 579. 16-18) 26: bhakṣayati balīvardān sasyam iti | kṣetrasthānām yavānām bhaksyamāṇānām himsā bhavati, tasyam avasthāyām kaiścic caitanyabhyupagamat | svamino vā himsā draṣṭavyā.28 substance, this is exactly the same explanation as that given by Kaiyața.
In
2. 5. 2.
Jinendrabuddhi, however, differs remarkably (I 579. 29-37): bhakṣir atra himsārthaḥ | 'sarve sacetană bhāvāḥ' ity asmin darsane himsitam sasyam iti sasyasya29 bhakṣaṇena devadatto himsito bhavati | yasya hi tat sasyam tasya himsā gamyate. The verb bhakṣayati denotes here an act of himsā. In accordance with the doctrine that all things existent are living, the corn [which is eaten by the oxen] is injured, and this means that by eating the corn [ultimately] Devadatta is done harm; for what is understood [by this sentence] is that harm is done to that person to whom the corn belongs.' This is apparently an attempt to amalgamate the two alternative interpretations which consists in simply combining the two different forms of himsā, in such a manner that the first, i.e. the destruction of the crop, leads to the second, i.e. the loss caused to the owner
.
