________________
448
THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN
(M. 8. 238), echoed by tadbhakşaņa in Bhāruci's commentary and paraphrased similarly by bhaks in Kullūka's Manvarthamuktāvalī:48 (sasya-) upaghāta (Bhāruci on M..8. 239 and 241; cf. Haradatta on Gaut. 12. 19 and Vijñāneśvara on Y. 2. 160); (sasya-) ghāta (Vi. 2. 159); pid (Gaut. 12. 19=2. 3. 16; Haradatta on 12. 21 and 23); (sarva-)vināśa (Gaut. 12. 26= 2. 3. 23); (sasya-)nāša (Vi. 5. 140; cf. 5. 146 and Nandapandita on Vi. 5.140 ff.; Y. 2. 161 and Vijñāneśvara on this and the following verses); aparādha (e.g. Maskari on Gaut. 12. 23; Vijñāneśvara in Y. 2. 160) ādin (Ap. 2. 28. 5., explained by Haradatta to be equivalent to sasyäder bhakşayits), etc. etc.
What is noteworthy in the first place is the interchangeability of vi-hims and bhaks. That the action denoted by bhaks does not, however, necessarily imply complete destruction is indicated by Nandapandita on Vi. 5. 147 in drawing a corresponding distinction (... yasya kşetre yāvat sasyam paśavo bhakşayanti nāśayanti vā...); and it is clearly what Haradatta had in mind when in explaining the expression sarvavināśe of Gaut. 12. 26 he says: yathā punaḥpraroho na bhavati tathā (sarvavināśe), i.e. when he makes clear that 'complete destruction' is meant; still more explicit seems to be Vijñāneśvara's remark, made with reference to Nār. 11. 31, viz. that this sūtra is punaḥprarohayogyamülāvašeşabhakşanavişaya, though a reader familar with agriculture might wonder where on earth a member of the bovine species could eat more than the epigeous parts of a plant and what value e.g. barley plants should have once they have been
