________________
460
THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN when he speaks of the view that 'sarve sacetanā bhāvāḥ (cf. § 2.5. 2 above). Indeed, it is perfectly understandable that in later times it was either Jainism or perhaps still Sāmkhya?' also which came to an Indian's mind when the idea was spoken of or seemed to be alluded to that the whole world or at least not only animals, but plants too are animate.71 It is therefore no wonder at all that already Kaiyața thought it necessary to point out that the caitanya of plants is not commonly accepted, but forms part of the doctrine of 'some' or 'certain' people (... kaiścic caitanyasyābhyupagamāts; cf. § 2. 3 above). On the other hand, this remark is quite interesting for two more reasons:
6. 3.
Thanks to it, it becomes now clear that apart from, or rather in addition to the reason adduced above ($ 3.2 ) for so many Pāṇiniya-s being unable to decide in favour of one interpretation only, a historical factor has to be taken into account too, viz. that at their time it was a particular group of people only which was associated with such a view of animateness and hence also of himsā, a group with which it is rather difficult to imagine that Patañjali was in sympathy as to its doctrines. And indeed, the reluctance of Kaiyaţa and his 'followers to content themselves with the first interpretation is not only understandable, but also justified at least in so far as a particular grammatical phenomenon of the Sanskrit language as the medium of communication of all (educated) people can in fact not be accounted for by
