________________
CATTLE, FIELD AND BARLEY
451
does not in the least help to solve the problem at issue, viz, a substantiated option between these two alternative and mutally exclusive interpretations. On the contrary, now that the implications and the background of the second interpretation have been understood, it appears to be even more difficult than before to advance reasons against its not also being what Patañjali actually had in mind.
4.
There is at least one passage in the Bh. regarding which there cannot be the least doubt that it has to do with the problem of the damage caused by cattle to crops, and it will certainly be useful to examine it, too. It is found at the very beginning of the discussion of Pāṇ. 1. 4. 27 (vāranārthānām ipsitaḥ) acco to which 'in the case of actions denoted by verbs meaning “ward off" [that too is technically called apādāna] which [an agent] wishes to reach / obtain'. The question about an example for the operation of this rule—and
e about the necessity of teaching it with which the discussion starts (I 328. 10: kim udāharanam) is answered by adducing the sentence māşebhyo gà vārayati, 'he keeps the cows away from the beans [in the field'; the discussion is then continued thus (I 328. 10-12): bhaved yasya māşā na gāvas tasya māşā ipsitāḥ syuḥ / yasya tu. khalu gāvo na māşā katham tasya māşā ipsitāḥ syuḥ / tasyāpi māşā evepsitāḥ / ätaś cepsitā yad ebhyo gă vārayati Il. It may be that for the person who owns the. beans, but not the cows, the beans (in the field] are something which
