________________
CATTLE, FIELD AND BARLEY
453
effect are found in the works of other commentators too. 61
Yet, in the present case one is fortunately not at all dependent on the help of the commentators, for Patañjali himself leaves his readers in no doubt about the correct interpretation of the example he has given at the very outset of his discussion of Pāņ 4.1.27. For, after having discussed this and some more examples he finally voices the opinion that this sūtra of Pāṇini's—like others following upon 1.4.24-need not be taught at all (I 328.21: ayam api yogaḥ śakyo 'vaktum); this contention quite naturally provokes the question: katham māşebhyo gā vārayatiti, i.e. how the use of the ablative in this and similar sentences can then be accounted for. The answer to it runs thus (I 328. 21-24): paśyaty ayam yadimā gāvas tatra gacchanti dhruvam sasyavināśaḥ sasyavināśe 'dharmas caiva rājabhayam ca sa ca buddhyā samprāpya nivartayati | tatra dhruvam apāye 'pādānam [Pāņ 1. 4. 24] ity eva siddham||. 'He (i.e. the herdsman who keeps the cows away) sees (i.e. considers62) that, if these cows do get there (i.e. into the field), the crop will be certainly destroyed, and if the crops is destroyed this means a breach of the pre
cribed conduct as well as that he must] fear (punishment] by the king. [Thus] he turns [his cows] away [from the field which they have not actually reached, but which] he has made them reach in his mind (i.e. which he conceives them to have reached).63 This being so, the correct result (viz. the application of the term apādāna to the word denoting 'beans in the field'] is simply achieved by Pāņ. 1.4.24.
