________________
CATTLE, FIELD AND BARLEY
449 eaten bare to the roots, even if the sprouted again.49 Yet, be that as it may,60 by the two expressions in question and the others also quoted above one may
ed by given the idea that it is this type of damage to crops that Patañjali had in mind with his example. And the subject of the Dharmaśāstra texts drawn upon is in fact the damage caused by cattle to the cr belonging to somebody else, as is also made clear, though rather superfluously, by the commentators, e.g. Vijñānesvara on Y. II 159 by adding para- in paraphrasing sasyaghātasya kāriņi 51 of the verse, or by Nandapandita when introducing his explanations on Vi. 5. 141 ff. by the general remark: paśubhiḥ parasasyanāśe dandam āha, etc.52
3. 2.
However, good care has, of course, to be taken not to draw premature conclusions from such similarities in expressions. For what is exactly meant by a particular expression like upa-han, pid etc: in each case is clearly determined, if not totally, then at least to a large extent, by the wider content in which it stands and how the section in which it is found is systematically organized. And regarding the Dharmaśāstra passages referred to above nobody will fail to realize, even when only starting to go through them, that their authors were interested in but one thing, viz. in the material damage caused by cattle; the questions of guilt and penalty for the material loss; the owner's title to compensation which cannot be denied (in certain cases); and specifically the role the
29
