________________
476
THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN
gamåt / yadvă 'dravyam bahiếcarāh prāņāḥ' iti smaraņāt sasya-bhakşanena sasyasvāmino himsā bhavatiti bodhyam //.
72 But vārtt. 15 on Pāṇ. 3.1.7 (sarvasya vā cetanatvāt) and the Bh. on it may also be taken as strong evidence for 'this assumptioninspite of Kaiyata who (Pradipa III 29 b 8) refers to the ātmādvaitadarśana as the alleged doctrinal basis of this vārtt. and inspite of Thieme (cf. his article mentioned in fn. 4, pp. 141 ff.=380 ff.) whose verdict that this statement of Kātyāyana's is 'naive' is likewise unsatisfactory (though one will with less reluctance subscribe to Thieme's opinion that 'the use of an expression like kūlam pipatisati is in no way calculated to suggest that the speaker adheres to an (animistic) world view'). It is, of course, true, as shown by Thieme, that Katyāyana and Patañjali do indeed distinguish between cetana and acetana, but this does not affect the importance vārtt. 15 on Pāṇ. 3. 1. 7 has if it is placed in the wider context of the history of the conception of animateness in India.
73 'Buddhismus und Natur' in: Die Verantwortung des Menschen für eine bewchnbare Welt im Christentum, Hinduismus and Buddhismus, ed. by Raimundo Panikkar and Walter Strolz, Freiburg-BaselWien 1985, pp. 100-133.
71 cf. 1. c., p. 123.-It is quite important to note here that the observation made by Schmithausen with regard to the Buddhist tradition, viz. that the idea of the animateness of plants became quite insignificant in the course of time, is not only confirmed by the grammatical texts, at least in so far as they are drawn upon in the present paper, and by the study of H.-P. Schmidt's already referred to, but also most strikingly (though, of course, not in its diachronical dimension) by a remark of Cakrapāņidatta's (to which my attention was kindly drawn by Dr. R.P. Das, a former student of mine); for while commenting on Caraka, Sūtrasthāna 27.3... annapānam prāņinām prāņisamjñakānām prānam ăcakşate kušalāh, he says: prāņinām ity anenaiva labdhe 'pi 'prāņisamjñakānām iti vacanam sthāvaraprânipratisedhartham; vrkşādayo hi vanaspatisattvānukāropadeśāc chăstre prāņina uktāh; na tu loke prāņisamjñakāḥ, kim tarhi jangamā eval. Cf. also fn. 68.
75 viz. I 137.
76 A similar idea is found expressed in a long excursus in the Fñānešvari on ahimsā (which for many reasons would deserve a
