________________
454
THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN It is hence clear not only why the commentators are not at all uncertain as to the meaning of the passage I 328. 10-12, but also that Patañjali indeed thinks here of the material loss the cows may cause and of what such a sasyavināśa would entail, viz. that a particular prescription of dharma is not followed and that the king .may in accordance with the law punish the adhārmika herdsman. It is beyond all doubt that the rājabhaya is caused by the breach of the prescribed conduct, but we must not lose sight of the fact that this relation is not expressed by Patañjali who instead connected the two corresponding expressions by caiva...ca. Therefore what was evidently of primary importance to him was to state that being responsible for a sasyavināśa has bad consequences in two respects, viz. in that apart from the eventual punishment (whether it be a fine or a corporal punishment) by the king, one is also defiled by adharma substance. Neither Patañjali himself nor his commentators has anything to say about the expression adharma used here, and indeed it does not seem to pose any difficulties; It is most naturally understood to denote the metaphysical consequence any action has by which a prescription of the dharma is offended against, and the Dharmaśāstra material referred to above admits of no doubt that the prevention of damage to crops was in fact considered to be an element of dharma. There is hence no need to suspect that the expression adharma perhaps refers to the injuring of the beans conceived of as living beings. On the other hand it is equally patent that what is meant by sasyavināśa here
