________________
450
king is to play, and this not as an impartial judge, but significantly enough as the head of the state who himself and for his own benefit takes a vital interest in the crop yield.53 The idea that plants are sentient beings or could be regarded as such is not only mentioned nowhere in these passages, but the sources referred to also breathe a quite different spirit. which would make it appear impossible that an idea like that of, the cetanatva of plants could have noticeably impressed their authors,54 This is definitely not what they are concerned with, and they are not even worried about the freedom from injury of men and animals; on the contrary, doing bodily harm to beings whose cetanatva is a commonly accepted fact is even one of the punishments they prescribe or recommend.55
THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN
On the other hand, so it might be objected and rightly at that, the Dharmaśāstra material drawn upon just now is evidence of the fact that the eating of crops by cattle was in fact considered a damage in India, most probably since of old, and even if vi-hims were not attested in M. 8. 238 in such a context, there can hardly be any doubt that damage (to crops) is covered by the expression himsā, too.56 Therefore, if it is because of the existence of this legal area that Kaiyața and other Pāṇiniya-s allow for the second interpretation of Patanjali's examples and to be sure it cannot be disputed that this is in fact the main reason, the striking difference of the second from the first interpretation in terms of its conceptual, intellectual and ethical ambience: though it was legitimate, even necessary to observe it
