________________
444
THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN
Since it is at that time a living being with some] internal awareness, eating it definitely [constitutes] an act of himsā,—this it is what is ultimately meant'. 2. 5. 4.
It is hence with no little surprise that one notices the divergent explanation given by Nāgesa in his Laghuśabdendušekhara; for there he says—in contradiction not only to Bhattojidikṣita's own clarifications, but also to what is stated in his own Uddyota (cf. above $ 2.4)-(678. 1-2) 35: parakīyasasyabhakşane paro himsito bhavatīti tatsvāmino 'tra himsā drastavyā ), i.e. he proceeds as though no other interpretation than the second alternative is possible at all. It is true that in his Brhacchabdendusekhara' he mentions the first alternative too, viz. adds it to a sentence verbatim corresponding to that quoted just now from the LÁS, for he says (II 851. 7)86: kşetrasthānām sasyānām bhaksyamāņānām vā himsā drastavyā / tadavasthāyām teşām cetanatvāts. The author apart, it is no real wonder to meet again, after consulting so many different sources, the two alternatives simply put side by side and connected only by a vā;37 but the disappointment which may nevertheless spring up is perhaps not really justified; in any case it is, I think, fully compensated for by the fact, remarkable as it is, that the idea of the plants, cetanatva has been alive for so long a time in India, ‘alive at least in the sense of still being known. 2. 5. 5.
As far as I can see, there is one author only who draws out of the line as it were in every regard, and this
