________________
CATTLE, FIELD AND BARLEY
455
at least includes the eating of the beans in the field, only that it is viewed in this case exclusively under the aspect whether or not it is in accordance with dharma, i.e. the prescribed rules of conduct. : .
5. .
Yet, so it has to be asked, what are the conclusions that may be drawn from this passage of the Bh. with regard to the problems of interpretation posed by Bh. I 337. 24-27 discussed earlier ?
(1) It bears evidence of Patañjali's being familiar, at least in substance, with what is taught in Dharmaśāstra texts about 'damage to crops'; there is hence not even the slightest chance of arguing against the second interpretation of the example given in the discussion of Pāņ. 1. 4. 52 by contending that Patañjali cannot have had in mind the material loss because he did not know the relevant rules of Dharmaśāstra.
(2) On the other hand, the concept of himsā, taken to mean injury done to a living being (and to be sure this is in fact the implication of the first interpretation), is conspicuously absent here, i.e. in the discussion of Pān. 1. 4. 27: It is not only not mentioned, but also not even hinted at or presupposed. But what does this prove? Admittedly it does not prove anything, but it no doubt considerably adds to the impression which one cannot but gather when comparing these two passages as wholes, viz. that in the discussion of Pāņ. 1. 4. 27 Patañjali is only interested in the material loss whereas in the discussion of Pān. 1. 4. 52 what is of primary
