On Term Antahsamjna

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler

Page 14

124
ABORI: R. G. Bhandarkar 150th Birth Anniversary Volume
in clear opposition to the contrary concept *bahihsamjña which is perhaps yet unattested only by mere coincidence. On the other hand, one has a feeling of uneasiness that the effects which are not observed externally should have been assigned to the interior of the plants. And this feeling becomes even stronger if the fact is taken into account that the meaning "sign, token, signal, gesture", rightly assigned to samjñā by the dictionaries cannot be derived from the original semantic nucleus "agreement ", " something regarding which there is an Agreement among men". Yet, for want of further arguments I should like to leave the question undecided for the moment as to which of the two alternative interpretations of what forms Medhātithi's first explanation is ultimately to be preferred. But to avoid misunderstandings, it should perhaps be stressed that both can, I think, be regarded as satisfactory in the sense that there is after all no need to start searching for another explanation, i. e. one not suggested or even directly given by Indian authors themselves.
Both alternative interpretations, however, call for further inspection, though now in other regards. It is not necessary to take a circuitous route - such as e. g. starting from Medhātithi's equating samjñā to buddhi and connecting this with Paksilasvāmin Vätsyāyana's dictum 56 arthagrahaņum buddhiḥ - in order to come to the conviction that the term antaḥsamiña does not in either case exclude the possibility of plants having the faculty of perception, but on the contrary clearly presupposes it.57 It is therefore by no means unjustified that one of the commentators on Manu 1. 4958 explicitly refers to a passage which in fact has to be regarded as the locus classicus in ancient Indian literature for the theory of the plants' possessing all the five senses, viz. Mahabharata (Poona ) XII 177. Space being limited, attention cannot be focussed here58 on this part of the Bhrgu-Bharadvāja-samvāda; one remarkable feature of it, however, has to be mentioned briefly : In this passage arguments are adduced which are meant to defend the thesis that plants, too, are made up of the five elements and are accordingly also endowed with a sense of touch, a sense of sight, etc. There
56. Quoted e. g. Siddhivinigcayaţikā (cf. fo. 51 ), p. 494 and correctly identified there as " from Nyayabhäsya on NS 3.2. 46", viz the sūtra or grahaņaväkya : helūpādānāt prati seddhavyabhyanujna. In the Nyāyakumudacandra (cf. fu), 30), p. 182, the reading is... buddhis cetani.
57. Cf. what has been stated above ($ 2.2) on the meaning of samjia.
58. Viz. Rāghavānanda - whose explanations are interesting also because of the fruti passages referred to by him.
59. Some of the problems posed by this text have been triedy discussed by me in an article entitled " Bemerkungen zu einigen von Naturboobachtung zeugenden Textstellen und den Problemen ihrer Interpretation " to be published in : Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 13/14 (1987) [ - W. Rau Felicitation Volume]; with the remaining problems - using additional material - I sball deal in another article still under preparation,