28 Introduction

SECTION VII

CHAPTER XXVIII MĪMĀŃSA AND DHARMASĀSTRA

VI

The Yājñavalkya-smrti provides that there are fourteen sources of vidyās (knowledge ) and of Dharma, 1863 viz. Purāṇa, Nyāya, Mimāṁsā, Dharmaśāstra, Angas (six) and the Vedas (four). A similar verse is quoted by some as Manu’s, but it is not found in the extant Manusmrti. It is therefore necessary to consider the origin and meaning of the word Mimāmsā, to set out the principal doctrines of that Sāstra, to mention the important rules of interpretation and the maxims of the Mimāṁsā in their application to topics of Dharmaśāstra and to refer to some of the important works of that Śāstra together with their approximate dates.

The word mimāmgā has a great antiquity behind it. The Tai. 8. VII, 5. 7. 1 1869 says ’the expounders of Brahma (Veda) discuss ( the question) whether a day should be omitted or not’. Here the verbal form ‘mimamsante’ is employed in the sonse of discussing or investigating a doubtful point and arriving at & decision thereon. In another passage of the Tai. 8. the same form

1868. grureTTHAIRT … well T. 1.3, quoted in a 1337 above, The puterearran reads ‘guruaĀRATH… a (12.3). Otra p. 6 quotes from facueriot the verse ‘1511A 2010 AJATHT feruant: I groot ETATII Feren Tag aus. It is agg. III, 6. 27, alg 61. 78. This is quoted as Manu’s by Prof. T. R, Chiatamani in JOR, Madras, vol. XI. supplement p. 1. It occurs in wiący (IFT 2.6) also. Vide H. of Db, vol. I. p. 112 note 198 where i Tantana is quoted for 14 lagts and H, of Dh. vol. III. P. 10 oote 17 (for the four additional vidyās bringing the total up to 18). Vide a recent publication of Dr. G. S. Gburye (1957, Bombay) op Vidyas (or Indian contribution to Sociology of knowledge, for detailed treatment. Even before the days of Kalidasa the Vidyās had been 14 as indicated by Ragbuvamśa V. 21 (Party PartieIT #Hiteist 91 atrau).

1869. grupei 3 freesat 3 ATA HIATE AFIKIE SUBTitara… d. #. VII. 5. 7.1 ; To Ouro maratona Sarapet FIATAT … Ha n an AIHIN. #. VI. 2, 6. 4-5. The last sentence means ’they do pot bave any doubt about his being fit for dining with them or fit for relation with him by marriage’.

Antiquity and meaning of word mimārsa

.1153

and another ‘mimamseran’ are used in the same sense.. In Beveral other places the Tai, 8. raises points for discussion with the words ’the brahmayadins discuss’ but without employing the word mimamsante or a cognate word. Vide Tai.s. II 5.3.7 (about the deity of sānnāyya), V.5. 3. 2, VI. 1. 4.5., VI. 1. 5. 3-5. The Kathaka Samhita 1870 guts forward a doubtful point for investigation without the words ‘Brahmavādins say’, but with the word ‘mimāṁgante’. The Atharvaveda 1871 etates ‘men separately discussing many times noted on the earth her actions’. In another place it employs the words mimāinsita and mimamsamana. The Saṅkhayana 182 Br. has they discuss the question whether one should offer homa after the sun rises or before the sun rises’. The Tai. Br. employs the word mimamsa and the Satapatha also in the Kāṇva recension doos 80 (vide S. B. E. vol. 26 note 1). In the Chandogyopaniṣad 1873 it is stated that five scholars very learned in the Veda and possessed of large houses (wealth) named Prācīnaśāla Aupamanyava and others got together and entered upon the consideration of the question ‘what is (the nature of) our self and what is Brahma-2’. In the Tai. Up. occur the words this is the investigation into (the nature of ) Bliss (Brahma)’. In both thege passages the word

mimamsa is used in the sense of ‘consideration’ (vicarana) of high philosophical topics.’

Pāṇini provides 1874 for the formation of seven roots with san affix (Desiderative), one of which is ‘mimamsate’ from

_1870. आधेयोनी ३ धिया ३ इति मीमांसन्ते श्वोमिमाधस्यमानेना ३ इति । काठकस. VIII. 12. ___1871. पश्यन्त्यस्याश्चरितं पृथिव्यां पृथङ्नरो बहुधा मीमांसमानाः अथ x. 1. सय एवं विद्यान द्विषजश्नीयास द्विषतोऽसमझीयास मीमांसितस्य न मीमांसमानस्य! अथर्ष Ix.6(2). 24. ___1872. उदित होतन्या३ मदित इति मीमांसन्ते । शां. मा. I. 8. Compare मह II. 15: सैषा मीमांसानिहोत्र एव सम्पमा ।ते. बा. III. 10.9. .

. 1873. प्राचीनशाल औपमन्यवः…ते हैते महाशाला महाप्रोधिया समेत्य मीमांसाचा: को न आत्मा किंबह्येति । छा. V. 11. 1: सैवानन्दस्य मीमांसा भवति । ते. उप. 11.8…

1874. यसिफियः सन् । मान-षध चान-शानग्यो दीर्घश्चान्यासस्य । पा. III. 1.5-5; the काशिका explains ‘मान पूजायाम् । … एतेम्पो धातुम्यो सन् प्रत्ययो भवति । अग्यासस्य

चेकारस्य वीदिशो भवति । मीमांसते …मानेजिज्ञासायाम् ।. The. bhasya of Śhaṅkara carya on v.S. I. I winds up the discussion with the words तस्माई मजिज्ञासोप म्यासमुखेन वेदान्तवाक्यमीमांसा तदविरोधितर्कोपकरणा निःश्रेयसमयोजना प्रस्तूयते ! on which the भामती remarks ‘मामाने स्थलांडा मान पूजायाम-पलादावोर मात. पध इत्यादिनानिच्छार्थे सति व्युत्पादितस्य मीमांसाशब्दस्य पूजितविचारवचनत्वात् &c.

E. D. 145

1154

History of Dharmasastra 1860. VII, Cb. XXVIII

‘man’ and the Kāśikā adds that it means desire to know 1e. investigation and final conolusion’, having in view probably the sūtras ‘Athāto dharma-jijñāsa’ and Athāto brahma-jijñākt ‘.

The foregoing brief discussion shows that long before the Upaniṣads the word ‘mimamgā’ had come to mean “investi. gation into a topio of discussion and coming to a conclusion thereon’. The same word acquired a restricted sense ( as in the verge of Yāj. quoted above) viz. investigation into Dharma and arriving at conclusions on doubtful matters by interpretation and reasoning.

Some of the Dharmasūtras disclose familiarity with purely Mimāmsā terms and principles. For example, Gaut. states 1875 that an option is allowed only when there is a conflict between two texts of equal authority. The Apastamba Dharmasūtra is the only Dharmasūtra that contains numerous Mināmsā terms and doctrines. It says ‘a positive Vedic text bas more force than an usage which merely leads to ao inference (of its being based on a Vedic text now lost)’. 1876 This is similar to Jaimini I. 3. 3

• If there is a conflict (between an express Vedic text and a gmrti text) the latter is to be discarded but if there be no conflict an inference may be drawn (that the smrti text is based on some Śruti). Ap. say, ’the rules about anadhyāya ( stopping Veda study on parvan &c.) are applicable only to learning the Vedic mantras and not to their application in sacrifices’. In another place Áp. provides where activity takes place because of finding pleasure therefrom (i. e. from a worldly motive), there is no (inference of its being based on ) sāstra’, which is similar to Jaimini’s rule. For reasons of space other examples of close agreement between Āp. Dh. S. 1871 and Jaimini are simply referred

26,33; competente per tempompare

1875, n r 4169:1 . I. 5; compare . XII. 3. 10 geruter विकल्पेरन समुश्शये धावृत्तिः स्यात्नधानस्य शबर explains: ये बेकार्याः एककार्यास्ते विकल्पेरन Tu aile quat, vide $747 ‘rudint arreglanet per a : 13 on . X. 6.33; compare # II. 14’ylagi av F4 Ungt fratis,

1876. hare meteraightenereka s114. . I, 1, 4, 8; compare ‘विरोधे वनपेक्ष स्यादसति धनुमानम्। जै. I. 3,3; विद्या प्रत्यनध्यायः भूयते न कर्मयोगे

Tri 319, . I. 4. 12. 9, compare . XII. 3. 19 ferat af Fame - कालं प्रयोगः स्यात्कर्मार्थत्वात् मयोगस्य ।। यत्र तु मीत्युपलब्धितः प्रवृत्तिर्न तत्र शासमस्ति। 74. 7. I. 4. 12 11, compare . IV, 1.2 fra stra: gore te foar

VISIT htanais.

1877. We at a preracert Ferrara Harg: I Sily. u. II. 4. 8. 13, compare Frapa I. 3. 11-14 (T e rence); u Forester af hvatao

(Continued on next page)

Apdstamba’s knowledge of mimamsā

i1śś

to in the note below and not explained at length. These examples show that in Apastamba’s day Mimārsā doctrines had beon far advanced and since he employs the words ‘Nyayavit. Bamaya’ (the siddhānta or doctrine of those who know Nyāya) and ‘Nyāyavidaḥ’, it follows that he is referring to some work on Mimāmgā or some author who composed a mlmāmgā-sūtra. The correspondence in ideas and words between Ap. and the Pūrvamimāmsāsūtra is so olose that one is tempted to argue that Āp. know either the extant mlmārsāsūtra or at least an earlier version of it containing almost the same expressions. It will not do to say that all the above passages are later intor. polations. They have all been commented upon by Haradatta.

Some Srautasūtras such as that of Kātyāyana contain rules of the interpretation of Vedic texts that are similar to Jaimini’s sūtras and sometimes are stated almost in the same words. 1870

(Continued from last page) Para: &c. 1 379. . II. 6. 14, 13, compare . VI. 7. 30 gearet e para T urgura: FURT!’; qui neq: HTI UUR Harpa: 1 814. #. 11, a.

13. 11, compare . VI. 1. 15 4147 RATTATI

14. It may be noted that P. M. S. writers are often called ‘Nyaya. vidah’ by Śhaṅkara (on V. S. III. 4. 22 ), by Viśvarūpa and others. Bbāskara in his commentary on Brahmasūtra (1. 1. 1. p. 5, Chowkhamba series ) states: यच्छब्द आह तदस्माकं प्रमाणमिति हि न्यायविदः. These are the words of Sabara in his bbāsya on P. M. S. III, 2. 36. Oo Yaj. I. 58 the Balakrida of Viśvarūpa says “Tatbā ca aaiyāyikāḥ, ’na bi vacapasyatibharosti tyābab’”. These are the words of Sabara on Jaimini III, 2.3 viz. ‘Kimiva vacanam na kurgāt sāsti vacadasyā tibbārab’. So here Sabara is called Naiyāyika. On Yāj. I. 53 the Balakrida says ‘Nyāyavidasca Yajñikāḥ i api vā sarvad barmah syāt tannyāyatvād vidhānasya’. This last is Jal. I 3. 16 So here Jaimiai is called Nyayavid and Yājāika. Similarly, on Yaj. I. 87 the Bālakrida quotes Jai. VI. 8. 17 as the words of Nyāyavido yajāikih’. The J. N. M. V. says nyāyas are the adhikaranas, deciding points of Dharma and expounded by Jaimini ‘जैमिनिमोक्तानि धर्मनिर्णायकान्यधिकरणानि Föret:.’ The writers of Srautasūtras are called merely Yājõikes by Balakrida on Yaj. I. 38 “Tathā ce yājõikāḥ vyavabāryā bhavanti itgāhuh’. This quotation is from Kātyāyana Srautasūtra 22. 4. 27-28. Besides, the sūtra “Prāyaścittavid bānācca,’ is the same in both Kāt. $. I. 2. 19 and P. M. S. VI. 3. 7 and Kat. $. I. 8. 6 is the same as P, M, S, XII. 3, 15; moreover, Kāt. Ś. IX, 11, 14-15 employ almost the same words as ia P.M.S. III. 5. 36–39, though they hold opposite views. The P. M. S. (IV. 4. 19-21) holds that the Piodapitryajña is not an anga of the rites on darta (1. o. Amavāsya ), but an independent rits, while the Kāt. Sr. (IV. 1. 28-30) holds that it is an anga. In the discussion on the meaning of the word Vaisvas

(Continued on next page)

PER INTE tractare samasutra (1. 1.1. D.upa and othera Bhasiera

1156

Historij of Dharmafāstra [ Seo. VII, Oh. XXVIII

Only a few examples may be cited hero; compare Kāt. I. 1. 9-10 (about rathakāra) with Jai. VI. 1. 44; Kāt. I. 1. 12–14 with Jai. VL 1. 51 and VI. 8. 20-22; Kāt. I. 1. 18-20 with Jai. XII. 2. 14; Kāt. I. 2. 18-20 with Jai. VI. 3. 2-7 (about nilya-karma yielding full reward, even though some anga could not be performed), also Kāt. I. 3. 1-3 with Jai. I 1. 35-40; Kat. I. S. 28-30 with Jai. VL 6. 3. Sometimes, the Kāt. S. takes a view opposite to that of the Pūrvamimāṁsā but the words are often almost the same.

The Vārtikas of Kātyāyana on Pāṇini and the Mahābhāṣya show that Mimāmsā technical terms and doctrines had been elaborated long before them. For example, the Vārtikas employ the technical Mimāṁsā terms ‘prasajyapratiṣedha’ (Vārtika 7 on Pāṇini I 1.44, Vārtika 5 on 1.2.1, Vārtika 2. on VI. 3.85), paryudāsa (Vārtika 3 on I. 1. 27 ), the word ‘Sastrātidosa’ (ip, Vārtika on VII, 1. 96), the distinction between ’niyama’ and

vidhi’ (in Vārtika 1 and 2 on III, 3. 163), the word ‘prakarana” (vārtika 4 on Vi. 2. 143). Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya is full of Pārvamlmāṁsā matters. The word ‘Mimamaaka’ occurs in bhāsya on Pāṇini II, 2. 29. The Mahābhāṣya cites the well known passage the five five-nailed animals may be eaten’ and remarks that the sentence conveys that others than those five were not to be eaton, 1879 But Patanjali does not employ the word Parisankhyā of which the above (five) is an example, according to mimāmgā works. Jaimini employs the word:

(Continued from last page) Dara occurring in Rg. I. 98. 1. apd 1. 59. 6 the Nirukta (VII. 21-23) cites the views of “acāryāḥ’, of tbe ancient Yājāikas (who beld that Vaiśvānara means the son in the sky) and of ‘sākapūại’ (who holds that it means the terrestrial Agai). The Nirukta mentions the views of Yājõikas in V. 11, VII. 4 (wbere Yājõikas differ from the Nairuktas), ia IX. 29 wbere the Nairuktas hold that Abumati and Rākā are wives of the gods while the Vājāikas held that these were the games of Paurṣamasi), in XI. 31 ( where a similar conflict between the views of the two interpreters of Sioivāli aad Kubū is mentioned) and XI. 42-43 ( where also the views of Yājāikas and · Nairuktas are mentioned ).

1879. wafara tarqaret nga 19h T A Eu th 1948 Quarto ats SETT FI RET710g (ed. Kielbord vol. I. p. 5). Compare set on .’ X. 7. 28 ‘Fana FAUT arra: FUTE I TOT TIETOT 997 Pa raretat qamrat efirdrevet poi siartua ergaul rata rah.’ The five animals are: stetta sama Tu 1791: F4 THA: # (TATUUT IV. 17. 39; HE V. 18 adda W (rhinoceros) to these five. Vide 9 I. 177 for fiva and Il. u. . 17. 27 :पानसाचा शल्यकशशश्वाविद्रोधाखाकच्छपा (अभक्ष्याः).

The Mahābhasya and Mimānsā

1157

Parisankhya in VII 3. 22. The Mahabhasya on IV. 1. 14 (vārtika 5) and on IV. 1. 93 (vārtika 9) gives valuable infor mation viz. a brahmana woman is called ‘Kāśakftsnā’ if she studies the Mimāṁsā expounded by Kasakrtsni. 1880 This establishes that in Patañjali’s time & mlmāmgā work composed by Kaśam kpteni was in existence and women were found studying it. It is not certain what the Kāsakrtani-mImāmsā contained i. e. whether it was like the Pūrvamimamsā of Jaimini or it was like the Uttaramımāmsā (Vedāntasūtra) or dealt with both mimāmsā and vedānta, which latter is not unlikely. The V. 8. mentions the opinion of a teacher Kasaktana (in I. 4. 22), which Saṅkarācārya regards as the final conclusion supported by the real import of Śruti. The son of Kāśakrtsna might have been called Kāśakṣtsni (Pāpini IV, 1. 95). The Vārtikas and Patañjali are full of the discussion of important matters on which the Mimāṁsā has its own doofrines. In the Vārtikas 35 to 59 on Pāṇini I. 2. 64 (Sarūpāṇām-ekaśeṣa ekavibhaktau) there is a lengthy dicsussion on the question of the import of words, viz. whether it is akyti or vyaktı. It is said in Vārtika 35 that, according to Vājapyāyana, āksti is the import of a word, whilo, according to Vyaời (in Vārtika 45 dravyābhidhānam Vyādih), dravya (or vyakti ) is the import of a word (pada). The Mabā bhāsya notes that Panini wrote some sūtras (such as I. %. 58 * Jātyākhyāyām ’ &o) in which he accepted jāti as the import of words, while in other sūtras (such as I. 3,64 sarūpāṇām ‘&c) he

1880. 11 TT ĀTAIAT 127 at Fillatrinta atacat neroft महाभाज्य on पा. IV. 1. 14. काशकमि मीमांसा dealt with पूर्वमीमांसा matters it is surprisiog that the extant TATATEE makes no reference to a when it names, besides anta, nins predecessors viz. strate, TSA (VI. 5. 17), ATEH (VI. 5. 16), tragiqa, 197198, m ifana, retro, tant and 1er4a. Dr. Umesha Mishra omits by oversight rey from the list of the predecessors of tara in his ‘critical bibliography of mimamsa’ added at the end of M. M. Jha’s ‘Purvamimāmsā in its sources.’ fi i’S AVATAT, being mentioned by Phones, must be placed not later than 200 B, C. If $a wrote on gathiar as is most likely, one would naturally expect that if the extant gaAIHTF was composed after 200 B. C. and about 200 A, D, (as both Jacobi and Keith propose) a should have been mentioned by the q… But if SATA was earlier than that or was a contemporary of the latter, then it would be natural i the it does not mention him.’ Therefore, though an argument from mere silence is not very strong, it is likely that the prosent P, M, S, was composed at least before 200 B.C.

1158

History of Dharmajāstra (Sec. VII, Ch. XXVIII

accepted ‘dravya’ as the import of words. 1881 It is to be noted that, according to Jaimini (I.3.33 ‘akrtistu kriyarthatvat). akti is the import of words. On Vartika 3 on Pan. IV. 1.92 (Bāmānyacodanāstu viśeṣeṣu) Patañjali says that the vidhis declared with reference to certain things and objects in general really apply to individuals and he gives purely mlmārsā examples in this connection as set out in the note. The Vartikan kira and Patanjali both use the word ‘codana ’ 1882 in the Purva mlmāmsā sense and give examples which are familiar to us from Śabarasbhāṣya. Among the purposes served by a study of grammar, nha (which is the subjeot of the 9th chapter of PMS) is one. On PaniniI.4.3 Patanjali uses the language of MImimsa ‘apurva eva vidhirbhavisyati na niyamah.’

It appears that the Saṅkarṣakāṇda was very much neglected from early times. There is a.conflict of views about its author ship. The Nyayaparisuddhi of Venkatanatha (I. H. Q. vol. Ix. at p. 299 ) states that Kāśakṛtsna was the author of the Śhaṅkara sakāṇda. It appears from Sabara’s bhāsya that 1883 that Kānda existed in his day and was looked upon by him as Jaimini’s work. Saṅkarācārya in his bhāsyaon V.S. III. 3. 43 (pradanavad. eva tad-uktam) mentions the Saṅkarsa, quotes a sutra therefrom, holds that it was known to the Vedāntasūtra and appears to convey that it was a work of Jaimini. Rāmāpuja also appears to hold that Jaimini was the author of 16 chapters ( comprising

1881. ‘किं पुनराकृतिः पदार्थ आहोविद दग्यम्। उभयमित्याह । कथं ज्ञायते । उभय था प्राचार्येण सत्राणि पठितानि। आकृति पवार्थ मत्वा जात्याख्या…वरस्पाम इत्युच्यते। द्रय पदार्थ मत्वा सरूपाणाम्-इत्येकशेष आरम्यते। महाभाष्य just before ‘सिद्धे शब्दार्थ सम्बन्धे vol. I. p. 6 Kielhorn’s ed.: आकृती शास्त्राणि प्रवर्तन्ते। … आकृतिस्त प्रत्येक परिसमाप्यते । महाभाब्य vol. II. p. 392 (Kielhora). ___1882. चोदनायां चैकस्योपाधिवृत्तः। घातिक 4400 पा. I. 2. 64; on which the महाभाग्य remarks ‘चोवनायो चैकस्योपाधिवृत्तमन्यामह आकृतिरभिधीयत इति। आरोप मटाकपालं निर्षपेत् । चोदनासु च तस्यारम्भात् ।’. पार्तिक 47 001.2.64. on which the महामान्य comments ‘चोदनासु च तस्यारम्भान्मन्यामहे द्रव्यमभिधीयत इति। गौरवपयोs जोऽग्रीषोमीय इति, कानि पुनः शब्दानुशासनस्य प्रयोजनानि । रक्षोहागमलनसन्देहाः भयोजनम् । p. 1. of Kielhorn’s edition%3; सामाग्यचोदनात विशेषेऽवनियन्ते। वयथा। गौरवपन्ध्योऽजोऽग्रीषोमीय इत्याकृतो चोदितायां द्रव्य आरम्भणालम्भनमोक्षणविशसनादीनि क्रियन्ते । पतञ्जलि on वार्तिक 3 00 पा. IV. 1.92.

_1883. विधिनिगमभेवः प्रकृती कृतः । विष्फद्विकारश्च वनस्पतिरिति सावल्यते । शपर onx.4.32 (p. 1934); यथा पत्नी तुल्यषच्य ते इति सङ्घर्षे वक्ष्यति । शपर on जै.XII. 2. 11 (p. 2242); ‘एवं तस्वाभेदेप्याधेयांशपृथक्त्वादाप्यानपृथक्त्वमित्यर्थः । तदुक्तं ‘माना पा वेषता पृथग्ज्ञानात् । इति । शङ्कर on.. III. 3. 43. Vide Siddha-Bharati partm pp. 102-105 for some sūtras from Sabkarga-kānda and Intro. to Tattvabinda Pp. 12-13.Saṅkarṣa-kānda

1159

the twelve called Pūrvamimams. and the four forming the Saṅkarsa). The Kalpataruparimala of Appayyadikṣita on V.S. IIL. 3. 43, while conceding that the Saikarsakanda was under taken for discussion about devatās, insists that it is a pariṭiṣta (supplement) of the P. M. S. of twelve chapters consisting as it doos of discussions on several topics treated in the P.M. S. and being of a miscellaneous nature, that it does not begin with nor conclude with the discussion about devatās and that its first sutra is ‘anuyajatiti anuvasatkaras-codyate’. Since the Saṅkarsakāṇda has had hardly any influence on Dharmaśāstra works no further reference need be made to it in this work. 1894

Later medieval writers look upon the mimāṁsāśāstra as the . most important of vidyasthānas (other than the Vedas), since it removes the ignorance, doubts and mistaken notions about the sense of several (Vedic) passages, and since all vidyasthanas require its aid for the determination of the nature of their real meaning.1885

In some works like the bhāṣya of Rāmānuja on V. 8. and the Prapancahrdaya 1886 the Mimāṁsāśāstra is stated to be as one whole containing twenty adhyāyas (chapters) and we are told that there was a (bhāsya) commentary called Kṭtakoti on the whole of it by Bodhāyana, that later on a concise commentary was composed by Upavarṣa, that Davagyāmin wrote a commentary

मीमांसाशास्त्रम् । तदिदायण जैमिनिकृतम् । तस्य विज्ञस्यध्यायनिव

1884. Vide a paper by Pandit V.A, Ramaswami Shastri in I.H.g. vol. Ix. pp. 290-299 on Saṅkarga as a supplement to the P.M.S. ____1885. प्रातिस्विकानेकवाक्यार्थगततत्त्वज्ञानसंशयविपर्ययव्युवासेन पारमार्थिकार्थसस स्वस्वरूपनिर्णयार्थ समस्तैरप्येभिषिधास्थानरम्यर्यमानत्वात्तेभ्योपि मीमांसास्यविधास्थानं गरीय स्तरम । तथा पाहुः । चतुर्दशस विद्या मीमांसप गरीयसी । जैमिनीयस्वार्थसंग्रह of

पिन परमेश्वर part. I p. 2 (T.S.S.).

1886. तत्र साङ्गोपाङस्य वेवस्य पूर्वोत्तरकाण्डसमिसस्वाशेषवाक्यार्थविचारपरायणं मीमांसाशास्त्रम्। तदिदं विंशत्यायायनिषद्धम्। तत्र षोडशाध्यायनिबद्धं पूर्वमीमांसाशा पूर्व काण्डस्य धर्मविचारपरायण जैमिनिफत्तम् । तदन्यदध्यायचतुष्कमुत्तरमीमांसाशासतर। कास्य ब्रह्मविचारपरायणं ज्यासकृतम् । तस्य विशत्यध्यायनिषद्धस्य मीमांसाशास्य कृतकोटिनामधेयं भाज्यं बोधायनेन कृतम् । तदधन्यवाहुल्यभयादुपेक्ष्य किंचिसंक्षिपवर्षेण कतम् । तदपि मन्दमतीमति दुष्प्रतिपादं विस्तीर्णवादित्युपेक्ष्य षोडशलक्षणपूर्वमीमांसाशासस्य देवस्वामिनातिसंक्षिप्तं कृतम्। भवदासेनापि कृतं जैमिनीयभाष्यम् । प्रपत्रहवय (T.S.S. pp. 38-39; तदाह वृत्तिकारः। वृत्ताकर्माधिगमादनन्तरं ब्रह्मविविदिषेति। वक्ष्यति च कर्मनामीमांसयोरैकशालयं सहितमेसच्छारीरक जैमिनीयेन षोडशलक्षणेनेति शानेकत्वसिद्धिः। श्रीमाण्य p. 2 (Bom. S.S.). vide ABORI vol. x. pp. 153-54 for the author’s paper on Bhavadasa as a predecessor of शपर. भवदास is named in श्लोकवातिक (प्रतिज्ञा verse 63) and the न्यायरत्नाकर an p. 133 states that भवदास split पू.मी.1.1.1.4 into two. Vide Intro. toस्वमिन्द्र PP. 19-20 for भवदास.

प वर्षण

1160

History of Dharmasastra [ Seo, VII, OL XXVIII

on 16 chapters and Bhavadāsa also composed & commentary on Jaimini, but that Sabara wrote a bhāṣya only on the first 12 chap ters and did not comment on Saṅkarṣa. In I.H.Q. (vol. 15 pp. 262 263) reference is made to an inscription of Rājarāja (999 A. D.) which records the gift of certain lands to a learned brāhmaṇa who was to provide to four pupils board and teaching in several sub jects, one of which is specified as the mlmārsā of twenty adhyāyas. These 20 chapters are made up as follows:–12 chapters (each divided into four pādas, except chapters III, VI and X, each of which has eight pādas, in all sixty pādas) ascribed to Jaimini, 4 chapters called Saṅkarṣakāṇda and 4 chapters constituting the Vedāntasūtra. The twelve chapters often called Pūrvamimāṁs make an extensive work containing 915 or about one thousand adhikarañas (according to different writers) and about 2700 sūtras, dealing with numerous topics and laying down important rules of vodic interpretation. Yāj. (in I. 3) means by Mimāmsā probably the work of Jaimini in 12 chapters. Many writers such as Mādhayācārya 1887 speak of two Mimāmsās, Pūrva and Uttara, respectively comprising the 12 chapters ascribed to Jaimini and the four chapters forming the Vedāntasutra. Saṅkarācārya refers to the extant Pūrvanimāṁsā as Dvadaśa laksani in his bhāṣya on Vedāntasūtra III. 3. 26, as ‘Prathama. tantra’ in bhāṣya on V. S. III. 3. 25. IIL 3. 53 and ILI. 4. 27, 89 Prathama-kāṇda in bhāsya on V. S. III. 3. 1, III, 3. 33, III. 3. 44, VII, 3, 50, as Pramāpalaksana in bhāsya on V. 8. III, 4, 42. On V. S. III, 3, 53 he speaks of the first pāda of the P. M. S. as .Śāstrapramukha ova prathame pāde’ and thereby conveys that he regards that the PMS and V8 form one entire śāstra.

From here onwards up to note 1890 the discussion is also comprised (though a little more briefly) in the present author’s paper on ‘Pūrvanimāmsā, Brabmasūtra &c’ contributed to the Prof. De Felicitation volume (pp. 119-139 ).

There are very difficult and controversial questions about the authorship of the extant Pārvamimāmsāsūtra and of the extant Vedāntasūtra (or Brahmasūtra ) and their relation to each other. All of them cannot be gone into here. The first matter to be noted is that, though the number of the Vedantasūtras is only about 1/5th of the number of the P. M. 8., the V.8. contains

1887. gatermitata a ser det urgare arataera heya: Intro. verse 4 to the Com, on the rate (Poona ed.), Some msa, road सायणाचार्यों for माधवाचार्यो.

Jaimini and Badarāyana

1161

more personal references (i. e. 32) than the P. M. 8. (i.. 27). In the 2nd place, we find that the Vedāntasūtras mention Jaimini eleven times and Badarāyaṇa nine times, while the P. M. S. names Bādarāyana and Jaimini only five times each. The question arises whether Jaimini and Badarāyana were contemporaries and, if not, what the relation between the two was. Scholars are generally agreed that they were not contemporarios. There is a tradition of some antiquity contained in the Sāmavidhānabrāhmaṇa 1889 according to which. Jaimini was a pupil of Pārāśarya Vyāsa. It has been shown above (p. 857, note 1390) how the Purāṇas declare that Vyāsa Pārāśarya, also called Krsna Dvaipāyana, arranged the one Veda into four and imparted the Rgveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda and Atharvaveda respectively to Paila, Vaiśampāyana, Jaimini and Sumantu. In the Mahābhārata Sumantu, Jaimini, Vaiśampayana, Paila are stated along with Suka (the son of Vyasa ) to be the pupila of Vyāsa; vide Sabhā 4. 11 and Sāntiparva 328, 26–27 (cr. ed. 314, 23-21, 29) and 350. 11-12 (cr. ed, 337. 11-12). In the tarpana provided for in the Āśvalāyanagshyasūtra (III. 4. 4) occurs the very interesting passage ‘Sumantu-Jaimini-Vaisan pāyana -Paila-Sūtra-bbāṣya-Bhārata-Mahābhārata-Dharmā cāryā). The above passages make it clear that several centuries before the Christian era Jaimini’s was an honoured name and connected with the Samadeva. Scholars have examined the references to Jaimini and Bādarāyana in the P. M. S. and the V.S, Prof. K. A. Nilankanta Sastri in I. A. Vol. 50 pp. 167-174 on Jaimini and Badarāyana arrives at the somewhat startling conclusion that there were three Jaiminis. T.R. Chintamani on p. 14 of the supplement to J. O. R. Madras, Vol. XI agrees with Prof. Nilakanta Sastri. Jaimini is named five times in the extant P. M. S. viz, at III, 1, 4, VI. 3. 4, VIII, 3, 7, 1X. 2. 39, XII. 1.7. Commonsense requires us to hold that these five

1888. सोऽयं माजापत्यो विधिस्तमिमं प्रजापति हस्पतये बृहस्पति रदाय नारदो विश्वक सेनाय विश्वक्सेनो व्यासाय पाराशर्याय व्यासः पाराशयों जैमिनये जैमिनि: पोपिण्ड्याय पौपिण्डवः पाराशर्यायणाय पाराशर्यायणो बादरायणाय बादरायणस्ताण्डि-शाट्यायनिग्यो anoszticamaat : &c.1 FTARET . (at end). The pet. T. on Helena. (Aface V. 23) sets out the cour957 of ORTATAT AS EA-14-mary afhI-

A T-urearra-SHA. The girang ngroft p. 8 (in Chowkbamba series) gives two similar yutas slightly differing from that of the HARUTATO aod from each other. The goutty is practically useless up to the. It may be noted that in the preferate Jaimini is said to be the disciple of Vyasa Pārādarya while between Jaimini and Badariyaga intervene two other names.

H, D, 146

1162

History of Dharmasastra [ Sec. VII, Oh. XXVIII

references about Jaimini must bave been made to the same person. If two different Jaiminig were intended by the P. M. S. (other than its own author) in the five sūtras a clear waru ing would have been given by the author. As shown below & sūtra should leave no ambiguity. Prof. Sastry holds that Jaimini mentioned in VI. 3. 4 is different from the Jaimini in the other four passages, because Sabara does not employ the word ācārya for qualifying Jaimini on VI. 3. 4 as he doos in the four other cases and because the view put forward in VI. 3. 4 appears to be Pūrvapakṣa, while in the four other Cases Jaimini’s view is the siddhānt, view of the Mimārsā sūtra. The number of sūtras in which Jaimini is named is very small (only 5), out of which the word ācārya is applied to Jaimini by Sabara in four places and not so applied in one. This is a very slender and inadequate ground for holding that the Jaimini in P. M. S. VL 3.4 is different from the Jaimini namod in four other places. The usages of acāryas as to employment of qualifying words like ‘ācārya’ or ‘bhagavat’ to authors mentioned by them differ. Kumārila applies no epithat like ‘ācārya’ or

bhagavān’ to Jamini and in one place 1887 charges Jaimini with composing sūtras containing not much substance. In the sūtras in which Jaimini is named in the VS (viz, in 1. 2. 28, I. 2. 31, I. 3.31, I, 4 18, III, 2. 40, LII, 4. 2, III, 4, 18, III, 4. 40, IV. 3.12, IV. 4. 5, IV. 4, 11) Saṅkarācārya adds the quali ficationācārya’ in all except on ILI. 4. 40, although Jaimini propounds many propositions not acceptable to Bādarāyana the author of V. S. or to Śhaṅkara. In III, 4. 40, however,1890 he omite the qualification ‘ācārya’ as regards both Jaimini and Bādarā. yaga. No one has argued that because the word ācārya does not qualify Bādarāyaṇa in III, 4. 40, the Bādarayaṇa in that sutra is different from the Badarāyaṇa named in other sūtrag. In another place (on V. S. IV. 1. 17) it may be noted Saṅkari. cārya romarks that both Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa are in agree ment that certain acts of the kamya type are of no help in

1889. ‘सन्ति च जैमिनरेवंप्रकाराण्यनस्यन्तसारमूनानि सूत्राणि तन्त्रवातिक p. 895 (on sqara p atata : 1, wbich is the first of six sātras after III. 4.9 that were omitted by Sabara ).

1890. The sūtra is ‘am T 210 fra State Param a rqua.. III. 4. 40 on which Śhaṅkara remarks: Articulos para ropot स्त्रसंपतिपत्ति शास्ति मतिपत्तिवावय. This means that पादरायण is the author of III. 4. 40 (in which wargot is pot Damed at all) and therefore of the entiro Vedānta-sūtra.

Jaimini and Badarāyaria

1163

attaining real knowledge of brahma. This shows that according to Śhaṅkara, Jaimini had treated of how brahma-vidyā arises. As regards the second reason, it does not clearly or indisputably appear that VI 3. 4 is a pārvapakṣa view. In that adhikarana the Pūrvapakṣa is stated in the first sūtra 1891 viz. as to suck nitya rites as Agnihotra or Darsapūrṇamāsa a man who can carry out all the details in their entirety is alone entitled to engage in them. The 2nd sūtra states the siddhānta view that, as regards nitya acts, it is not absolutely necessary that one should be able to perform all details (angas) therein; the third sūtra only states that smrti declares that it is a fault if the principal rite is not performed and therefore the principal rite being obligatory must be performed. Then comes the 4th sutra in which the name of Jaimini occurs. Sabara’s bhasya on this sutra is extremely meagre (2} lines in print) and not clear. The Tup-tikā does not comment separately on each of the sūtras of VI. 3. 1-7, 1892 it omits the name of Jaimini in ita explanation and its concluding words on this adhikarang appear to support the interpretation of the 4th sūtra advanced by the present author. No one doubts that sūtras 5-7 support the siddhānta view. If VI. 3. 4 were a pūrva. pakṣa sūtra, it is expected that sūtra 5 should contain the word ’tu’ or ‘api vā’ in order to indicate that it refutes the

1891. सर्वशक्तो प्रवृत्तिः स्यात्तथाभूतोपदेशात् । अपि पाप्येकदेश स्यात्प्रधाने अनि वृत्तिर्गणमात्रमितरत्तवर्थत्वात् । तदकर्मणि च दोषस्वस्मात्ततो विशेषः स्यात्मधानेनामिसम्बन्धात् । कर्मामेदं तु जैमिनिः प्रयोगवचनैकत्वात् सर्वेषामुपदेशः स्यादिति । अर्थस्य व्यपवगित्वावेकस्यपि quat man hartig i… VI. 3. 1-5. It appears that the art FATHI

METE by Vasudeva-dikaita (ms, in the Madras Govt. Oriental Mas. Library) reads frotard for nature and stafequartana in sūtras 4 and 5. I am indebted to Dr. V. Raghavan for this reference. Io a complete ms (22 A in Prof. Velankar’s Catalogue p. 317 No, 1091) of the bhāsya of Sabara in the Bombay Asiatic Society’s Mss. Library on VI. 3, 1 the words Affage are omitted and white is read for m e . The word ‘apadesa’ in the 4th sūtra may be taken in the same sense in which it is used in PMS I. 1. 5 ‘autpattikastu … tasya jñānam-apadesah’ or io the general senso of ‘iostraction’,

1892. The great op g. fit. & VI, 3, 4 appears to make this clear पत्रकारो निरये इतिकर्तव्यतामिच्छति। … एवं च साझं गावजी न शक्नोति कश्चिदपि

TATA TI 4740434 suforraai het then yvet fare l’. The last sentence means “If one, being able to finish an obligatory rite with all details, omits some part at his sweet will, then there would be defect in the rito itself,

1164

History of Dharmaśāstra (śo. VII, Oh. XXVIII

view expressed in sūtra 4. What that sūtra moans is that the dropping of some angs in the nilya rite does not make that rite a different one from the same nitya rito when performed with all angas, since the text about its performance (with all anges or with some angas) is one and the same and the vedio instruction is that all angas have to be done ( if possible). Interpreted thus, that sūtra is not a pūrvapakṣa at all, but only emphasizes the siddhānta with additional reasons. The upshot would be that Jaimini mentioned five times in PMS is only one person and that he is a different person (who had written on P. M.) from the reputed author of the extant PMS.

A parallel may be cited. Saṅkarācārya makes one adhikarana of sūtras 26-33 of V.S. 1.3 (devatādhikarana) which establishes that not only inep but gods are qualified to study the Vedāntaśāstra and names Badarāyaṇa twice in the same adhikarapa (in I. 3. 26 and 33 ) and in I. 3.33 he employs the word ’tu’ because that sutra is a reply to Jaimini’s viow contained in I. 3. 31-32. Similarly, the PMS puts forward the siddhanta view in VI. 3. 2 and naines Jaimini in VI. 3. 4 for the same purpose.

Even Prof. Sastry admits that in four out of the five references where Jaimini is expressly named, bis views are the siddhānta views. The cases of PMS IX. 2, 3 and XII. 1. 59 are somewhat remarkable. The adhikarapa in both cases consists of only one sūtra, which is the siddhanta view and Jaimini is expressly named therein. In PMS III. 1. 4 Jaimini differs from Bādari (III. 1.3) and two more sūtras are added to complete the adhikarapa. In PMS VIII, 3, 7 Jaimini’s view is opposed to that of Bādari (VIII. 3. 6), is the siddhanta view and there is no separate sūtra setting forth the view of the author of the PMS.

From the remarks of Saṅkarācārya on V. 8. III, 4. 40 (quoted in note 1890) it follows that he regarded Bādarayaṇa as the author of the Vedāntasūtra. In V.S. III. 2. 38-39 the Siddhanta is stated that the rewards of actions are given by Isvara (God), while Jaimini’s view is that it is Dharma that gives the rewards of actions (III. 2. 40) and in the next sūtra (III. 2. 41) it is stated that Bādarāyaṇa holds the former view (or that the former of the two, Isvara and Dharma, gives the reward is the view of Bādarāyana). Here Bādarāyaṇa is expressly mentioned as holding the same view as that in the Siddhantasūtra III. 2. 38.

Jaimini and Bādarayana

1165

The observations of Saṅkarācārya in introduoing 1893 the last sūtra of the V8 make it perfootly clear that he regarded Badarā. yaṇa as the author of the entire Vedāntasūtre. No satisfactory explanation is offered why it was necessary to mention Bādara yana nine times in the V8 when all the 555 sūtras thereof are deemed to have been composed by Bādarāyana, or why it was necessary to mention in a work containing about 2700 sūtras all deemed to be composed by Jaimini, the views of Jaimini five times when in all cases or at least in four out of the five cases the views are identical with the reputed author of the PMS. Only two theories are possible viz. to hold that there is no explanation or to hold that there were two Jaiminis and two Badarāyanas.

The problem of the author of the VS is rather complicated, Bhaskara (like Śhaṅkara) holds that Bādarāyana is the author of VS, since he begins his commentary on VS with an obeisance to Badarāyaṇa who sent forth (into the world) the Brahmasutra that brings about the cessation of the bondage of birth. The Pañcapādikā of Padmapada (a disciple of Saṅkarācārya performs ( in the 2nd Introductory verse) an obeisance to Bādara. yaṇa. 184 Rāmānuja, on the other hand, makes confusing statements. In the 2nd verse of his introduction to the Ścibhāsya 1895 on V8 he calls upon all good men to drink the nectar-like words of Pārāśarya, but in his bhāṣya on VS IL %. 42 he holds that Badarāyana was the author of the Maha bhārata, wherein the Pāñcarātra-sāstra is expounded at great length ( in Śāntiparva chap. 334-339 = cr. ed. 321 f.) as also of the VS 1896, But Yamunācārya, the preceptor of the teacher

1893. नन्वं सति सातिशयवत्तावन्तवत्मैश्वर्यस्य स्यात्ततश्चैषामावत्तिः प्रसज्येतेस्यत उत्तरं भगवान पादरायण आचार्यः पठति-अनावृत्तिः… शब्दाद। शाकरमान्य . IV. 4. 22.

1894. नमः शतिशिल्पसपण्डमार्तण्डमूर्वये। बादरायणसंज्ञाय मुनये शमवेश्मने । पत्र. grant 2nd Intro. verse (Madras Govt, series, 1958).

1895. कथमेवं अवाणो पावरायणो वेदविवसरोवे वान्तवेद्यपरबाभूतवासदेवोपासनाच wianiayaayu FTESEQNWUMATATU Tai p. 509 of more (B.S. S.) on .. #. &. II. 2. 42.

1896. यद्यपि भगवता बादरायणेन इवमन्येव त्राणि प्रणीतानि विधुतानि च तानि परिमितगम्भीरभाषिणा भाष्यकता विस्तृतानि च तानि गम्भीरन्यापसागरभाषिणा श्रीवत्साह.. FA song. I fare (Chow. S. S.) pp. 5-6.

1166

History of Dharmalāstra (86c. VII, Oh. XXVIII

of Rāmānuja, ascribes the VS to Bādarāyana In spite of Saṅkarācārya, Vācaspati-misra, author of the fainous Bhamati on 1897 Saṅkarācārya’s bhāsya on V8, makes an obeisance to Vedavyāsa, the author of Brahmasutra The Parāśara mādhaviya is in two minds; in vol. I part I pp. 52, 97, vol. II part 2 pp. 3 and 275 Bādarāyana is said to be the author of the VS, but in a few other places VS is spoken of as Vyāsasutra (vol. I part 1, pp. 56, 113). The above conflict of testimony gives rise to the important question whether Bādarāyapa, the supposed author of the Vedāntasūtras, is identical with Veda. vyāsa or is differeut from him. Saṅkarācārya’s bhāsya points to the conclusion that in bis opinion at least they are different, 1898 For example, on V. S. I. 3. 29 he quotes a verge of Vedavyasa in support of the proposition of the VS that the Veda is eternal. On VS II. 3. 47, in support of the proposition that, though the individual soul is an amśa of the Supreme Self, the latter is not at all affected by the suffering of the individual soul, Śhaṅkara quotes two versos as smrti from the Mahābhārata. This makes it clear that, if the author of the VS was identical with Veda. Vyāsa, the author of the Mahābhārata, Saṅkarācārya would not have cited the latter as an independent smṛti source supporting the former or would at least have used some such language as * this very author bas said elsewhere that’ &o. The same reasoning would apply to Saṅkarācārya’s comments. If that great koārya was of the opinion that the author of the VS was the same as that of the Mahābhārata and the Gitā he would not have cited passages from the Epic and the Gitā as Smṛtis supporting the reasoning of the VS.

If it were contended that there is only one Jaimini (and not two, much less three) a serious difficulty arises. Why should the author of PMS ( containing about 2700 sūtras ) refer to him self by name in five places only. The usual explanation offered

1897. men at det har hi marara pat wanit : # racit, 5th Intro, verse.

1898. 3ta ga Fateetara I 2. & I. 3. 29; per aquesta mera! garantieren IETETHET: ITT ATT Sali Berrar as pia. This verse is sulava 210. 19 (cr, ed. 203, 17): Hi I a. a. II. 3. 47; ppi “स्मरन्ति च व्यासादयो यथा जैवेन दुःखेन न परमात्मा दुःखायत इति । ‘तत्र यः परमात्मा दि सनिस्यो निर्गुणः स्मृतः। न लिप्यते फलैश्वापि पनपत्रमिवाम्भसा कर्मात्मा स्वपरो योसौ मोक्ष re: # Goghi F Fion a taman goua ga: # ? Peps. These two are intraprend 352, 14-16 (cr, ed. 339, 14-15),

Jaimini and Badarāyana

1167

by some commentators when Papini names 1899 his predecessors, viz, that they are named for showing his reverence for them, would be of no avail as to Jaimini, since it cannot be said that the author of PMS Jaimini shows respect to himself. When Jaimini mentions Bādarāyana in I. 1. 5 and XI, 1. 65 Sabara 1900 explains this is done for showing respect to Bādarāyaṇa or for spreading his fame. Another explanation that ancient authors often refer to themselves in the 3rd person will not do. Why should the author of about 2700 sūtras choose five places only for referring to himself. Therefore, one is compelled to hold that, if Jaimini is the author of the extant PMS and mentions the views of Jaimidi five times only, there was a predecessor and namesake of his called Jamini who had expressed his views in a different work.

There are eleven sūtras in the VS in which the views of Jaimini are referred to. They are ( as stated above ) VS I. 2. 28 and 31, 1. 3. 31, I. 4. 18, III. 2. 40, III. 4. 2, III. 4. 18, III, 4. 40, IV. 3, 12, IV. 4, 5, IV, 4. 11. Out of these eleven there are six references to Jaimini (viz. I. 2. 28, 1. 2. 31, I. 4. 18, IV. 3 12, IV. 4. 5, IV. 4. 11) for which no corresponding adhikarana or sūtra in the PMS can be pointed out, while sūtras III. %. 40, III. 4. 2, III, 4. 18 attribute views to Jaimini, which are well known doctrines of the PMS. VS I. 3. 31 corresponds to PMS VI. 1. 5 and on III, 4. 40 (quoted in note 1890 above) Jaimini and VS agree. Therefore, it appears that the Jaimini who expresses views on purely Vedāntic topics and whose views are not found in PMS composed a work on Vedānta.

There are in VS nine sūtras in which Badarāyana is named viz. in VS I. 3, 26 and 33 (Bādarāyana being twice named in the same adhikarana as opposed to Jaimini), III, 2. 41, III. 4. 1, III. 4. 8, III. 4. 19, IV. 3. 15, IV, 4.7, IV, 4. 12. It may be noted that in all these cases (except in IV. 3. 15) the views asoribed to Bādarāyana are opposed to those of Jaimini or are slightly different (only VS IV. 4. 7 and IV. 4, 12). Prof. Nilakanta Sastri thinks that all the views mentioned as Badarāyana’s are the viows of the author of the VS who employs

1899. On apa-ara gat: igau (97. 1. 2. 25 ) the entry says’ilgan ग्रहण किमर्थम् । काश्यपग्रहणं पूजार्थम् ।.

1900. पादारायणग्रहणं बादरायणस्येदं मतं कीर्यते बादरायणं कीर्तयितुं नात्मीय मतं grerago 79 on g. 8. . I. 5 p. 25; TATUEU entgaard A on it. . XI. 1. 65.

,

1168

1168

History of Dharmaśāstra ( Sec. VII, Ch. XXVIII

the third person for himself as anoient authors do (1. A, vol. 50 at p. 169). This does not afford a satisfactory explanation of the question why it was necessary to invoke Bādarāyana’s namo in nine cages only for battressing up the position of the author of the V8 (that has 555 sūtras). If the author of the VS and Bādarāyaṇa named nine times are identical, the name of Bādarayapa should ordinarily appear towards the end of the adhikarana and not in the middle. Two examples may be cited here to illustrate how VS deals with references to Bādarayana. In III.2 38-41 (which is one adhikaranı) the siddhānta view is first stated with reasons in III, 2. 38-39, then Jaimini’s view is oited (III. 4. 40) and then Bidarāyaṇa is mentioned as agreeing with the view first put forth ‘pūryam tu Badarāyapo hetuvyapadeśāt), the difference being that the siddhānta is based upon ‘upapatti’ while Bādarāyana relies upon ‘hetuvyapadeśa’ (in sruti and smṛti). This shows that different reasons were assigned by the author of VS and by Bādarāyana for the same proposition. VS. III, 4.18-20 form one adhikarana about sannyāsa. Jaimini starts the pūrvapakṣa that the Chan. Up. (II. 23.1 ’trayo dharmaskandhāh’) only makes a passing reference to the āśramas, there is no vidhi ( injunction ) in that text and there is no exposition also. Then Bādarāyana’s view is cited ‘anuṣtheyam Bādarayanah samyaśruteh’ i. e. sannyāsa should be resorted to just as one resorts to the householder’s stage. Then comes the view of the author of the V8 that there is a vidhi of sannyāsa in that text. If Bādarāyana and the author of V8 be held identical, why was it necessary to add the gūtara *vidhirvā dhāraṇavat’ (VS III. 4. 20) after stating Bādarāyana’s piow? It would be also noticed that the reasons given in the two aātras differ. In VS IV, 4. 10-14 first the views of Bādari and Jaimini on Chān. Up. VIII, 2, 1, 5 are set out, then Bādara yapa’s view is set forth (in IV, 4, 12) and then two more sūtras are added by the author of VS. Therefore, these illustrations show that, though the final conclusion of Bādarāyapa and the author of VS is the same, the language and the reasons are different, and that Bādarāyaṇa named in the VS was a predecessor of the author of the extant VS that had composed a work on Vedānta, whom the author of the VS strengthens with

Teasons of his own.

In Pāṇini’s time there were mendioant ascetios (bhikṣus) who studied the ‘Bhiksusūtra of Pārāśarya’ or ’the Bhikṣusātra

of Karmanda’ and were designated “Pārāśarinah’ andBhik ṣusūtras of Pārāśarya and Karmanda

1169

• Karmandinah. 1901 A bhikṣu represents the order of Sannyāsa. Therefore, a Bhikṣusūtra must have had as its subject sannyāsa, the time for it, the rules of the order, the final goal to be attained and so on. The Bļ. Up. (III. 5.1 and IV. 4. 22) emphasizes that those who realize brahma give up all desires and practise begging. The Gautama-dharmabūtra 1902 says the same thing. No trace is found of the Bhikṣusūtra of Karmanda. But it is possible to say that the Bhikṣusūtra propounded by Pārāśarya must have been somewhat like the extant Brahmasūtra or one of its predecessors. This would be the earliest reference to & sūtra by Pārāśarya on the sannyāsāśrama. The date of Panini is not beyond dispute. But no modern scholar would place him after 300 B.O. The present writer would place him as garly as at least 500 or 600 B. O. The result would be that the Bhikṣu sūtra of Pārāśarya named by Panini would have to be placed at some time between 400 B. C. to 700 B.C. Further light is shed by Vārtika 1903 (1) on Pāṇini IV, 1. 97, from which it follows that Vyasa’s ‘apatya’ (son) was called Vaiyāsaki, that is Suka (according to the Mahabhāṣya). Badarāyana is formed from Badara which is a word in the Nadadi-gana (consisting of about 76 words), according to Pāṇini IV. 1, 99 (Nadadibhyah phak), Badari being the son of Badara, Badarāyana being the grandson (or a remoter male descendant) of Badara. At some period Vyāsa and Badarāyana came to be confounded and Suka, who was the son of Vyāga according to the Vārtika and the Mahābhāṣya, came to be called Bādarāyaṇi (son of Badarayana) as shown by the Bhagavatapurāṇa (XII. 5. 8 where Suka is said to be ‘Bhagavān Badarāyaṇiḥ’). It appears that from the 9th century A. D. Bādarāyapa came to be confounded with Vyāsa Pārāśarya.

1901. Premieret fage : I am area: 1 4. IV. 3, 110-111; पाराशर्येण प्रोक्तं भिक्षुत्रमधीयते पाराशरिणो भिक्षयः, कर्मन्देन प्रोक्तं भिक्षुलम धीयते कर्मन्दिनो भिक्षः । सि. कौ. It is possible that Panini refers to a sutra work on ancient Sāokhya by Pancasikha. This will be briefly discussed in another chapter below. It will be shown later from the Mahabhārata that Pancasikba was called bbikṣu and Pārāśarya (vide note 2186 below).

1902. ferari vera farga : … fat fate:… faran art faurgi sita y EET III, 2. 10-13.

1903. guh 9. IV. 1. 97; gurgareta anda piterrefert ! वैयासकिः कः। महाभाष्य,

X, D. 147

1170

History of Dharmasāstra (880. VII, Oh. XXVIII

A brief examination of the citation of the views of Badar. yapa and Jaimini in the PMS and the Brahmasūtra 1904 is necessary. Badarāyana is named only five times by the P. M. sutra as said above. (1) In P. M. S. I. 1.5 the author claims that he and Bādarāyana are agreed on the eternity and infalli bility of the Veda; (2) In P. M. S. V. 2. 17-20, there is a discussion on Nakṣatresti. In the model sacrifice there are certain homas called Nāristha; the question is whether in the modifioations of the model wherein certain subordinate homas colled upahomas are prescribed, the Nāriṣtha homas precede or follow the Upahomag. The sindhūnta view is that Nāriṣthahomas precede, Ātreya being of the opposite view and Bādarāyana supporting the siddhānta. (3) In P. M. 8. VI. 1. 8 Bādarāyana’s view is that not men alone but women also are entitled to take part in kratus (Vedic sacrifices) and this is the siddhānta of the P.M. S.; (4) P. M. S. X. 8. 35-46 make an extensive arthikaranır in which the question is whether the texts prescribing Āgnoya and Aindrāgna purodāśus in Darśapūrṇamāsa for a sacrificer who has not performed soma sacrifice constitute a vidhi (of the two) or only an anuvāda, Bādarāyaṇa’s view in PMS. X. 8. 44 being that its is a vidhi and the siddhūnta being that there is an anuvāda (X. 8. 45). (5) PMS XI. 1. 54-67 constitute a lengthy adhikarana and the discussion concerns the question whether āghāra and other angas are to be repeated with each of the principal matters (Āgneya and others) in Darsapūrṇamāsa or are to be performed only once.

With regard to these five cases where Badarāyana is cited in the P. M. S. three points emerge, viz. the author of the P.M.S. agrees with Badarāyaṇa’s view in all except in X. 8. 44 (whore the two differ), that the view attributed to Bādarāyana in P.M. S. I 1.5 has correspondence with the views of the V.8. (1. 3. 28-29) and that four views out of five refer to purely sacrificial matters to which nothing corresponds in the V. S. It follows that the author of the extant P. M. S. had some work of Bādarāyana dealing with Pūrvamlmāmgā matters before him and that, if Bādarāyana be the author of the extant V.S., the latter had composed a work on Pūrvamimāṁsā matters also or that there was another Bādarāyaṇa who wrote only on Pūrya

1904. Prof. Nilakant Sastry’s paper referred to above is valuable, but several of his conclusions set out on p. 172 of I. A. vol. 50 cannot be accepted by the present writer, who regrets that Prof. Sastry did not consider much other matter relevant to the points discussed by him.

jaimini and Badarāyana

1171

mimāmsā. The five references to Jaimini in P. M. S. have been noted above and the sūtra VI. 3. 4, which led Prof. Sastry to postulate three Jaiminis, has been already explained as not necessarily leading to any such conclusion.

Another alternative might be put forward viz. that works by Jaimini and Bādarāyana did not exist before the extant V. S. and P. M. S., but that the references to Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa concern views current in the schools of Jaimini and Bādarāyana. But this is not a likely hypothesis. The extant V. S. and P. M. S. are meant for all throughout Aryāvarta and it is not likely that the oral traditions of two schools were supposed to be known to all and sundry in the whole of the country.

In several cases where Bādarāyana is mentioned, the extant V. 8. makes certain additions and explanations. It has been shown above that Saṅkarācārya, Bhāskara and Yamuna ascribe the V. S. to Bādarāyaṇa and that Vācaspati and others hold that Vyāsa Pārāśarya is the author of V. S. It is difficult to explain how Vedavyāsa came to be identified with Bādarāyana after the 9th century A. D. Some other relevant matters have also to be considered. A verse about kṣeira and kṣetrajna in the Bhagavadgitā raises a problem. In Gitā 1905 13. 4 it is said this

1905. Frathugur fri returrat que la serata dagarnardt a sita 13. 4; the first half refers to the passages in the Vedas and Upaniṣads and the 2nd half to the Brahmasūtrapadas. E acasa must be connected with gitam according to all commentators. The present writer feels that the word ‘qṣibhiḥ’ also most be understood in the second half of the verse. It īsibhiḥ is required to be connected with .cbandobbiḥ’, there is no reason why tbat word should not be connected with ‘Brahmasūtrapadalı’ also. Two words io the instrumental are employed in the first half (viz. ssibbik (agents) and ‘chandobbih’ (means); if we uoderstand ‘psibhiḥ’ in tho 2nd half, we shall have a symmetrical arrangement viz. ‘raibhih’ (agents) and ‘Brabmasūtrapadaih’ (means). There is a contrast between Vedic and Upadiṣadic passages in the first half and Brabmasūtra passages that are well reasoned and definite in the 2nd half. Then the morning will be that sages had composed several Brabmasūtrag. The author is inclined to hold that the Gitā refers to several Brabmasūtras current in its day and not to the extant Vedāntasūtra, Hore commentators other than Saṅkarācārya understand by the word “Brahmasūtra’ the work going under that name in these days. The late Lokamānya Tilak in his Marathi “Gitārabasya’ die ousses (io appendix part 3 PP. 527-534 of the ed, of 1915) the question of the relation of the Gith and Brabmasūtra and pats forward his own surmiae

(Continued on next page)

1172

History of Dharmatastra [ Sec. VII, Ch. XXVIII

real nature of kṣetra and kṣetrajña has been separately sung (i. o. propounded) in many ways by the sages in different vedio hymns (or metros) and by the words of the Brahmasutra that are full of reasoning and that arrive at definite conclusions’. Here the Gita expressly mentions Brahmasūtra. If one turng to the extant Brahmasutra (or Vedāntasūtra), it is found that in many sūtras reliance is placed on smṛti, which is taken to mean the Gita by all acāryas. For example, on ‘Surtisca’ (V.S. I 2. 6) the only Smasti passages cited by Saṅkarācārya are Gitā 18. 61 and 13.2. Similarly, on ‘api ca smaryate’ (V. 8. I 3.23) Śhaṅkara cites only Gitā 15. 6 and 12; on ‘api ca smaryate’ (V. S. II. 3. 45) the only Smrti passage quoted by Śhaṅkara is Gitā 15. 7; on ‘Smaranti ca’ (V, S. IV. I. 10) only Gita 6.11 is quoted; on ‘Yoginaḥ prati ca smaryate smārte caite’ (V. S. IV. 2. 21) Gitā 8. 24-25 alone are set forth as the passages meant to be explained. Therefore, though the Bhagavad. gitā is not expressly named in the Brahmasūtra, the ācāryas are agreed that the Bhagavadgita alone is relied upon and referred to in all the above-mentioned sūtras. We have, therefore reached this position that the Gita mentions the Brabmasutra which must be held to be earlier than the Gita, but as Gita passages are declared to be at the basis of some of the Vedanta sūtras, the Gitā must be earlier than the V. S. This is contradi ctory; Saṅkarācārya, 1906 who saw the contradiction, therefore explained ‘Brahmasūtrapadaiḥ’as passages (of Upaniṣads) that suggest (i. e. propound) doctrines about brahma (i. e. he interprets sūtra’ as meaning ‘sūcaka’). But this explanation is far-fetched and has not been accepted by other commentators. Therefore, other theories have to be put forward viz. that the author of both is the same or that the Mahabharata and Gita were receiving accretions from time to time and that when the

(Continued from last page) that the author who composed the extant Brahmasūtra redacted the original Mabābbārata and Gitā and gave them both the present form. The present writer regrets that he cannot accept this surmise of the late Lokamānya. It may be pointed out that Prof. R. D. Karmarkar io (ABORI vol. III. PP. 73 79) did not accept Lokamānya’s explanation of Brabmasūtrapadaih’ and beld that is Gitā 13. 4 the word ‘Brabmasūtrapadaiṇ’ does not refer to the Bādarāyaṇa sūtras but refers to some similar other works. But he did pot pursue that matter further.

1906. ब्रह्मणः सूचकानि वाक्यानि ब्राह्मसूत्राणि ः पद्यते गम्यते ज्ञायते इति तानि पदान्युच्यन्ते। तेरेव च क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोर्याथास्यं ‘गीतम् । इत्यनुवर्तते। ‘आत्मेत्येोपासीत’ इत्पादीमहि नमस्त्रपदेशमा ज्ञायते । शङ्कर on गीता 13.4.

Bhagavadgitā and Brahmasutra

1173

final redaction of the Mahabharata (including the Gitā) was made the verse about Brahmasūtra was inserted in the Gitā or that in the times of the Gitā there were several works called Brahmasūtra other than the extant one,

The present writer thinks it highly probable that the Gitā had before it several works called Brahmasūtras and in 13, 4 refers to them and not to the extant Brahmasūtra of Bādarāyaṇa. A brief examination of the authors mentioned in the PMS and VS is necessary. Both these works mention by name several individual authors (besides Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa). Both PMS and vs mention the following:

Atreya - PMS IV. 3. 18, V. 2. 18, VI. 1,26 and VS III, 4, 44; Asmarathya-PMS VI. 5. 16 and VS I. 2. 29, I. 4. 20; Karṣnājini – PMS IV, 3. 17, VI, 7. 35 and VS III, 1. 9. Badari - PMS III. 1. 3, VI. 1. 27, VIII, 3. 6, IX. 2. 33 and VS. I.

2.30, 11. 1. 11, IV, 3.7, IV. 4. 10; PMS also names Alekhana (VI. 5. 17), Aitiśāyana (III. 2. 44, III. 4. 24, VI. 1. 6), Kāmukāyana (XI. 1.58 and 63) and Lāyu kāyana (VI. 7. 37), these being not mentioned at all in the V8. On the other hand VS mentions Audulomi (I. 4. 21, III, 4. 45, IV.4.6) and Kāśakrtana (I, 4,22), both being absent from PMS. The PMS very rarely refers to some ācāryag as eko’ in I. 1.27 and IX. 3.4; V. S. has ’eke’ in I. 4. 9 and 18, II. 3. 43, TIT. 2. %. and 13, III. 4. 15, IV. 2. 13 and ’ekoṣām’ in I. 4.13, IV. 1. 17, IV. 2. 13 and ‘anye’ in III, 3. 27, in all of which the reference in V.S. is to other recensions of the Veda or Upanisads, while in III, 4. 42.eke’ refers to acāryāḥ and in III. 3. 53 ’eke’ refers to Lokāyatikas. Vyāsa or Pārāśarya is not mentioned by name in PMS or VS. The case of Badari requires careful considera tion. The PMS mentions both Badarāyana and Jaimini only five times each, while PMS and V8 mention (each) Badari four times. Badari differs from Jaimini on two important points viz. the denotation of the word seṣa’ and the remarkable view that even sūdras are entitled to perform agnihotra and other Vedic rites. In Vs. Bādari is mentioned as differing from Jaimini on the upāsanā of Vaiāvānara in Chan, Up. V. 18. 1-2 and on the words ‘sa enān brahma gamayati’ (Ohān. Up. IV. 15.5) and in V8 IV. 4. 10 Badari is opposed to Jaimini about a released soul. It follows from this brief analysis and the mention of Bādari four times in PMS and also in VS that both the latter had before them a work of Bādari dealing with Purva

1174

History of Dharmafāstra ( Sec. VII, Ch. XXVIII

mlmārgā matters and also with Vedānta, Alekhana and Asma rathya are both quoted at least 16 times in Ap. Sr. Sūtra, their views are quoted frequently as in confliot on the ritual of sacrifices and these are the only two individual authors quoted in Āp. Sr. 8. It is likely that Atreya, Asmarathya and Kārsṇājini composed & work or works dealing with both systems and Audulomi (quoted thrice by VS) and Kāśakrtsna composed works on the Vedanta. Vide Tantrayārtika on I 3.2 p. 169 note 2010 for the view that the present PMS was preceded by several efforts in the same direction.

From the above discussion it may very plausibly be held that the word ‘Brahmasūtrapadaih’ in Gitā 13. 4 refers to some sūtra works such as those of Bādari, Audulomi, Āśmarathya and one or two others and not to the extant Brabmasūtra. No one can say that Badari and Atreya are not ļsis’. Sabara refers to Ātroya as ‘Muni’ on PMS VI. I. 26.

It should be remembered that Jaimini, Bādari and Badarā. yana are gotra names. But Vyāsa is not a gotra Dame and Pārāsarya is one of the three prararas of the group of Parāśaras. 1907

The Ap. Śr. Sūtra 24. 8. 10 (ed. by Garbe) and the Pravara mañjari (ed. by Chentsalrav, Mysore, 1900) p. 61 mention Bādarāyaṇa as a sub-section of Viṣṇuy;ddhagotra, while p. 38 of the latter work mentions Jaimini along with Yāska, Vādhūla, Mauna and others as having the pravara ‘Bhargava-vaitabavya gāvataseti’ and pp. 108 and 178 cite Bādari (or Vadari) as a sub-division of Parāśaras. Therefore, it was possible that several individuals separated by a century or more could bear the bamo of Jaimini or Bādarāyapa.

We have also to answer the observations of the Naiskarmya siddhi of Sureśvarācārya (the most famous of the disciples of Saṅkarācārya himself) that Jaimini does not mean that all passages of the Veda relate to sacrificial rites and that if he really meant that, he would not have composed ‘Sārirakasūtra’ beginning with ‘athāto brahma-jijñāsā’ and ‘janmadyasya yataḥ’, containing an investigation of the purport of all Vedanta passages, laying bare the nature of brahma and supporting his words with profound reasoning; but that as a matter of fact he

1907. 314 ofiarem Serote: I afro-

FT-OTTA I Pascasais afeta i any, t. 8.2410. 6.

Naiṣkarmyasiddhi on sarirakasūtra

1175

did compose such a sarirakaśāstra. This passage means that Jaimini composed a sūtra work called Sarirakasūtra on the investigation and knowledge of brahma, which began with two sūtras that were the same as the first two sūtras of the extant Vedāntasūtra 1908 Col. Jacob in his Introduction (p. 3) to the first edition of the Naiskarmyasiddhi thought that the Naiskar myasiddhi made Jaimini the author of the Vedāntadarsana. He is inaccurate, since all that Sureśvara says is that Jaimini composed not only a sūtra work on the Karmamimāmā but he also composed a work called Sarirakasūtra on the doctrines of brahmamsmāmsā, but he does not convey that the whole of the extant Vedāntasūtra is the work of Jaimini. Dr. Belvalkar 1909 postulates two propositions, viz. that there were brahmasūtras written separately for the Chāndogya Upaniṣad and the Bṛbad āraṇyaka-Upaniṣad and other Upadiṣads for each Sākhā and secondly, that the Sārirakasūtra of Jaimini wag bodily incorpo rated within and forms the main part of the contents of the present text of the Brahmasūtra. The present author takes strong objections to both these propositions, He cannot go into this question at length here but has to remark that these propositions are based on little evidence. If ‘janmadyasya yatah’ was also & sūtra of Jaimini who was specially connected with the Sama veda by the Mahābhārata and Purāṇas, why is it that that sūtra is supposed by the bhāṣyakāras as based on a passage of the Taittirlya-upaniṣad? The Chandogya and Bphadāraṇyaka Upa niṣads are each Dearly thrice as long as all the other sight Upan niṣads (out of the principal ton Upaniṣads) and six times longer than the Taittiriya Upanisad. Therefore, these two Upaniṣads figure largely in the discussions in the extant Brahmasūtra. The 2nd proposition is hardly more than a pure guess. There is no evidence to establish that the main part of the extant Vedānta sūtra is bodily taken from Jaimini’s Sārīrakasūtra, when the latter has not come down to us and when no sūtras therefrom

1908. यतो न जैमिनेरयमाभिमाय आम्नाय: सर्व एव क्रियार्थ इति । यदि स्वयमभिमायोऽम विण्यद् अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा नन्माघस्य यतः इत्येवमादिबावस्तस्वरूपमात्रयाथाल्यप्रकाशन पर गम्भीरन्यायसन्दब्धं सर्ववेदान्तार्थमीमांसनं श्रीमच्छारीरक नासूत्रपिण्यत् । अस्त्रयञ्च । तस्माज्जैमिनरेवायमभिमायो यथैव विधिवाक्यानां स्वार्थमात्र प्रामाण्यमेवमैकाल्यवाक्यानामध्यन fiaren aurrerunala i do pp. 54-55 (ed. by Col. Jacob in B, S. S. 1906).

1909. Vide bis ‘Gopal Basu Mallit Lectures on Vedānta Philosophy pp. 141-142.

1176

History of Dharmadastra ( Boo, VII, Oh. XXVIII

(other than the two noted above) are quoted anywhere as from Jaimini’s Sārirakasūtra.

Then some sūtras of VS in which the words ’tad-uktam. 1910 ocour have to be considered. There are eight sutras that contain those words. Saṅkarācārya holds that in VS I. 3. 21, II, 1. 31, III. 3. 18 (where ’tad uktam’ occur) the reference is to the preceding sūtras of the VS itself. On V. S. III. 3. 26, III. 3. 33, III. 3.50 and III, 4. 42 Saṅkarācārya holds that these respectively refer to PMS X. 8.15, III. 3. 8, XI. 4. 10 and I. 3. 8-9 and that VS III. 3. 43 refers to a sūtra of the Saṅkarsakānda. The other acāryas differ from Saökarācārya in several places and among themselves. Vallabhācārya, who had come to regard the Bhāgem vata as of equal authority with the Veda and as even supersed ing the latter, holds that the words ’tad-uktam’in VS ILI. 3. 33, HII. 3. 50 and III, 4. 42. refer to passages of the Bhagavatapurāṇa. The VS III. 3. 41 appears to echo the words and principles of PMS ILI. 3. 14.M11 The words ’tad-uktam’ should ordinarily mean the same thing throughout i, e. they should everywhere bo takon as referring to the PMS or to Vs. But no ācārya is prepared to accept entirely one of these two alternatives. It may further be noted that the extant P. M. S. very rarely employs the words ’tad-uktam’ as in V. 3. 9 where it refers to PMS V. I. 19.1912 The P. M. S., though it mentions Bādarayana five times, nowhere appears to be influenced by the V.8. On the other hand, not only are some of the sūtras of V. S. contain ing the words Tad-uktam’ deemed to be references to the P, M. Sūtras, but the V.8 frequently employs peculiar Pūryamimānsā words such as arthavāda, prakarana, linga, vidhi, śeṣa and purely P. M. matters such as in III. 3. 26 (kuśāchandastutyupa gānayat), III. 3. 33 ( anpasadavat), III. 4. 20 (dhāranavat), IV. 4. 12 (Dvādaśābavat). Therefore, the extant VS very much presupposes the P. M. 8., while the latter cannot be said to have been influenced by VS to any noticeable extent.

The present author now wishes to draw together the separato threads that have been epun 80 far about Vyāsa, Jaimini,

1910. Vide a brief pote .The problem of Tad-oktam Sutras’ by Prof, P.M. Modi io I, H. Q. Vol. 13 pp. 514-520.

1911. Compare t he refren : . #. III. 3. 44 with giaisoga13444KOTEUT THATEYTA FATTO ATTESTAU t a’ n. . . 111.3.14.

1912. H ar aangig… V. 3.9. This relers to V. 1. 19 ( spana naruratat eraan ). In q. ft. IX. 2. 2 occur the words ’n weten which refer to q, . VII, 2. 13.

Conclusions about Jaimini, Vyāsa and Bādarāyana

1177

Badarāyana, the PMS and the V8 and tries to present a tenta. tive pattern of conclusions as follows:

1. The Mahabharata and some Purāṇas state that Jaimini was a pupil of Pārāśarya Vyāsa. But this is said in relation to the transmission of the Samayeda to Jaimini and therefore must be confined to that matter alone (and not extended to other matters) in aocordance with the mināmsā maxim yāyad vacadam vācanikam.’ We have got a Jaiminiya Brāhmaṇa, a Jaiminlya Srauta-sūtra and Ghya-sūtra. The tradition about the imparting of Samaveda to Jaimini may be true and at present there is no evidence to show that it is wrong. There is, however, no warrant for extending this tradition to the reputed authors of the PMS and the Vs. Lato medieval writers like Vallabhācārya, whose weakest points were lack of correot know ledge of history and chronology and the obsession to glorify to the skies their favourite authors and works, extended the above tradition about the Sāmaveda to the authors of the two sātra works,1913 viz. PMS and VS. From the above discussion it follows that the extant PMS is earlier than the extant VS and that the author of the extant PMS could not have been a disciple of the author of the extant VS. The medieval writers failed to pay proper attention to the fact that Jaimini and Badarāyana are also gotre names and not merely individual names.

2. From Pāṇini we know that there were two bhikṣu-sutras composed by Pārāśarya and Karmanda before his time. Patan jali mentions a mimāsaā work composed by Kāśakṣtana. There is, therefore, no doubt that sūtra works on ‘bhikṣus and mimāṁsā had come to be composed several conturies before the

Christian era.

3. From the examination of the views of Jaimini mentioned in the extant VS it appears that Jaimini composed a work on Vedānta also. Some corroboration is lent to this view by the romarks of the Naiṣkaramyasiddhi quoted on p. 1175 above. There is nothing to show that this Jaimini was a pupil of Bādarayana or of Pārāśarya. On the contrary, the words ‘Jaiminer-api’ in VS. III. 4. 40 convey great solicitude on the part of the author of the extant VS for Jaimini’s support. The author of the

4. On t a na (V, S, I. 1.4) gyreri says: Petr Hrafturite जिज्ञासामेव प्रतिज्ञाय तत्प्रतिपादकस्य पूर्वकाण्डस्य समन्वयमाह। अवान्तवाक्यानां प्रकार शेषत्वात्। न च सर्वस्मिन् वेदे धर्म एव जिज्ञास्यस्तरुणैश व्यासेन महाजिज्ञासाया: प्रतिज्ञातत्वात्।

H. D. 148

1178

History of Dharmasastra [ Sec. VII, Ch. XXVII

extant VS shows special respect for Jaimini’s views, since he quotes Jaimini more times than other ācāryas (including Badarāyaṇa). It becomes necesgary to hold that there were two authors named Jaimini, one dealing with both PM and Vedānta subjects and the other deemed to be the author of the extant PMS. This Jaimini is different from Jaimini deemed to be the author of the extant PMS.

4. The fact that PMS mentions five times Bādarayana’s views, four of which are concerned with purely sacrificial matters and the fact that the VS mentions Badarāyana nine times in conneotion with Vedānta matters, leads to the inference that Badarāyaṇa must have composed a work dealing with PM and Vedanta topics. That work has not come down to us. This Bādarāyaṇa is different from the Bādarāyaṇa regarded by Saṅkarācārya and others as the author of the extant VS. Thus there are two authors namod Badarāyana.

5. The author of the extant VS was, according to Śhaṅkara cārya, Bhāskara and some other early bhāsyakāras, also Badarāyaṇa, but from about the 9th contury A. D. onwards he came to be confounded with Vedavyasa.

6. So far as the PMS and VS are concorned, there are only two Jaiminis (and not three, as Prof. Sastry holds in I. A, vol. 50 p. 172) and two Bādarāyaṇas.

The present section is concerned mainly with the influence of Pārvamlmāmsā doctrines and methodology on Dharmaśāstra works. But it must be mentioned here that Pūrvamimārngā works from that of Jaimini onwards also rely upon smrtis and Dharmaśāstra. A few examples may be cited. The PMS I, 3 deals with the limits of the authoritativeness of smstis, PMS VI. 7.6 montions the word ‘Dharmaśāstra’ The P. M. S. expressly relies on smrti in support of its propositions (as in XII. 4. 43). On PMS VI. 1. 12 Sabara quotes a smrti verso, which is almost the same as Manu VIII. 416 and Adiparva (82.23=Cr. Ed. 77.22). Sabara frequently quotes Dharmasūtras and metrical smitis to elucidate and strengthen his arguments; 0.g. Sabara on PMS VI. I. 10 quotes Ap. Dh. S. II. 6. 13. 11 and states on PMS VI. I. 15 that the sale of a daughter montioned in the smṛtis is not approved of by śistas. 1914 It is not necessary to cite further

1914. Fatiga taarro ITA Tuna, 37 Tragi-gra i 7 on VI, 1, 10 and ‘maaga parem una op PMS. VI, 1. 15. Vide

(Continued on next page)Purvamimaisā and Smṛtis

1179

examples to support the proposition stated above. Those inter* ested may consult the present author’s paper on “Gleanings from Sabara and the Tantravārtika’ JBBRAS vol. 26 (old series, 1924) pp. 83-98 and on Tantravārtika and Dharmasastra’ in JBBRAS, New series, vol. 1 and 2 for 1925 (pp. 95-102).

We must now turn to the Pūrvamimārgāsūtra itself. In relation to every śāstra there are what are called four anubandhas (indispensable elements) 1915 viz. Visaya (the subject to be treated of), prayojana (the purpose or object), sambandha (the relation of the śāstra to the prayojana) and adhikarin ( the person entitled or competent to study the sastra). The Slokavartika 1916 remarks ‘as long as the purpose of any sāstra or of any under taking (or act) whatever is not declared, so long no one will take it (i. e. study or do it).’ Therefore, the very first sutra of the PMS puts forward the subject ( viṣaya) and the purpose of the śāstra (prayojana). 1917 That sūtra states ’next, therefore, (should be undertaken) the investigation and consideration of dharma’. The sambandha of this sāstra with the prayojana is that of sādhya (the object to be attained) and sadhana (the means of attaining) i. e, this śāstra is the means of attaining the knowledge of dharma. Therefore, as remarked by the Sastra.

(Continued from last page) आप. घ. सू. II. 6. 13. 11 for the first sentence and मनु III. 53 for ‘आगोमिथुन शुल्कम्! on P. M.S. VI. 8. 18 शबर quotes यथैव स्मृतिः, धर्मे … भातिचरितव्येति, धर्ममजासंपने दारे नान्यां कुर्वातति च। एवमिदमपि स्मर्यत एव, अन्यतरापायेऽन्यां कुतिति।। आप.ध. (II. 5. 11. 12-13) has the two सूत्र, धर्मप्रजा…कुर्वीत and अन्यत…कुति (with slight variations).

1915. The four अनुबन्धs in the case of the पूर्वमीमांसा may be brielly put as ‘शाने धर्मादिविषयः, तदवघोषः प्रयोजनं, त्रैवर्णिकोऽधिकारी, विषयविषयिभावादयः सम्बन्धाः ‘.

1916. सर्वस्यैव हि शानस्य कर्मणो वापि कस्यचित्। यावत्प्रयोजन नोकं वापतकेन गृह्यते ॥ श्लोकवा. (प्रतिज्ञासूत्र) 12.q. by बालक्रीडा on या. I. 1. P. 2.

1917. ‘अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासासूत्रमाद्यमिदं कृतम्। धर्माख्यं विषयं पकं मीमांसायाः प्रयोजनम् ॥ श्लोकवा. (प्रतिज्ञासूत्र) v. 11. अथ means आनन्तर्य i.s, aafter the study of the Veda from a guru that has already taken place. The firs t days (p. 12) ‘तसिद्धमध्ययनादनन्तरं धर्मजिज्ञासा कर्तव्येति । सा चतुर्विधा धर्मस्वरूप-भमाण साधन-फलैः।”. The न्यायरत्नाकर comments on verse 18 (of प्रतिज्ञावच) ‘योर्य पूर्वोक्तन भयोजनेन सह शास्त्रस्य साध्यसाधनसम्बन्धः स एव शास्त्रारम्भहेत.’ Compare the well known maxim ‘प्रयोजनमनुद्दिश्य न मन्दोऽपि प्रवत’ found in श्लोकवा. (सम्बन्धाक्षेप. परिहार. 55). Writers of the Prabhakara School bold that the word dharma in P. M.S. I. 1. 2 means ‘Vedartha’. vide Rjuvimala-palicita on Br̥hati (p. 20) ‘चोदनास्त्रेण चोदनालक्षणः कार्यरूप एवं वेदार्थः, म सिद्धरूप इति प्रतिज्ञातम् । तदनेन भाष्येण व्याख्यायते। धर्मशब्दश्च घेदार्थमात्रपरः।।.

1180

soc. VII, Oh. XXVIII

dipikā (on P. M. S. II. 1. 1), the proper subject of this sāstra is Dharma and not the meaning of the Veda (tasmad dharma ityøya sāstraviṣayo na vedārtha iti). The adhikārin is one who has studied the Veda or a part of it from a guru and is treated of at length in the 6th chapter of the P. M. S.

The Mimāmgāsūtra does not state how much of the Voda has to be studied before one enters on understanding the mean ing of it. Here the Smṛtis come to one’s help. Gautama II. 51-53 prescribes several options viz. twelve years for one Veda or 12 years for each of the four vedas or so long as he can commit to memory (one Veda). Manu IlI. 1-2 are similar viz. one should study vedas for 36 years under a guru or for 18 years or nine years or for as many years as would be required for committing Veda to memory and they permit the option of studying the three Vodas or two Vedas or ons Veda. Yaj. I. 36 remarks that Vedic studenthood lasts 12 years for each Veda or five (for each Voda) or gome sages say for as many years as the student would require to master (one Veda or more). But even these prescriptions must have been rather a tall order for many brābmapas, ksatriyas and vaisyas. Further, the Mimāmsā requires that not only should a person of the three varṇas ( classes ) study the Voda but he must also engage in understand ing its meaning. On PMS I. 1.1 Sabara states that the vener able Yājõikas do not 1918 declare that rowards result from the mere study (momorizing) of the Veda and that where the Vedic texts appear to assign a reward for the mere memorizing of Veda they are merely arthavādas (intended only to praise Veda study ). as in Tai. Ār. II.15 which states1919’whatever (vedic texts about a), sacrifice he memorizes the result is that be, as it were actually performs that, and he secures absorption into (or communion with) Agni, Vāgu, Sūrya. The Tai. Up. I. 9 attaches the greatest importance to svādhyāya (memorizing the Veda) and pravacana (teaching it or expounding it) and after stating the views of two sagas cites the view of Naka Maudgalya that svādhyāya and pravacana are the most important to be resorted to or striven for, though sta, satya, dama, sama, agnihotra, hospitality and others may be combined with them, the reason

1918. 7 YETTEAST THAT $T: T ATRA I 19 od 1.1.1.

1919. तस्मात्स्वाध्यायोऽध्येतव्यो यं यं ऋतुमधीते तेन तेनास्येष्टं भवत्यर्षापोरादिस्यस्य । सायुज्यं गच्छति । ते. आ. II. 15%; अतं च स्वाध्यायमवचने च… सत्यमिति सत्यवचाराधीतः। तप इति तपोनित्यः पोकशिधिः। स्वाध्यायप्रवचने एवेति नाको मोदल्यः। तद्धि तपः तद्धि तपः। 8.3. 1. 9.

How much of the Veda to be studied

1181

being that those two constituto tapas. The PMS in IIL 8. 18 (jñāte ca vācanam na hy-avidyān vihitossti) provides that only he who knows the Veda has adhikāra for performing sacrifices. Śabara 1920 raises the question how much of the Veda must a man know in order to be entitled to perform a vedic sacrifice and replies that he must have memorized as much of the yeda as would enable him to carry to its completion the vedic sacrifice undertaken by him, The Tantravārtika on the same sutra adds that the whole veda is to be studied during the period of studenthood, but if anyone is unable to memorize the whole veda, but somehow only the portion on Agnihotra and Darsa pūrṇamāsa, then it cannot be said that he has no adhikāra for performing those two. To memorize the Veda and also to study its meaning was a formidable task. Many verses of the Veda had a threefold application with reference to sacrifices ( adhi yajña), with reference to the deities (adhidaivata or adhidaiva) and adhyatma (with reference to the spiritual or metaphysical meaning ). Vide Nir. III. 12 ( where Rg. I. 164, 21 is explained in two ways, adhidaivata and adhyātma ), X. 26 (where Rg. X. 82.2 is explained in two ways, adhidaivata and adhyātma), XI. 4 ( where Rg. X 85. 3 is explained in adhiyajña and adhidaivata ways), XII. 37 (where Vāj. 8. 34. 55 is explained in the adhi daivata and adhyātma ways ), XII. 38 ( where Atharva X. 8.9 is explained in adhidaivata and adhyātma ways). Manu ( VL. 83 ) lays down the jape (muttering) of Veda of the adhiyajña, adhidaivika and adhyatmika types. Manu I. 23 and Vedānga. jyotiṣa say that the mantras of the three vedas were drawn from Agni, Vāyu and Sūrya for the carrying out of yajñas. Vibya rūpa on Yāj. I. 51 1921 explains the words ‘vedam pratāni vā pāram nitvā’ as memorizing the Veda and completely under standing its meaning and not morely memorizing it. Dakṣa says that Vedābhyāsa (study of the Veda) comprehends’five 1992

1920. TETET Paleatsita i horegter a : FTATURITATE! … Pengar पुनर्विदितेन विद्वानधिक्रियत इति। यावता विदितेन शतो भवति यथोक्तं क्रतुमभिनितयितुं तावयो वेद स तेन क्रतुनाधिक्रियते।… सर्व ऋतवः कथं ज्ञायेरन पृथक पृथगिति कृत्स्नस्य

F YYƏT guai 7 op g. #1. &. III. 8. 18; a Taranto qe HIT वेदोऽध्येतण्यः। यदि तु कश्चिदशक्तो नाधीते सकलम, अग्रिहोत्रदर्शपूर्णमासमा कथंचिदधि Teela 7 a 9 F ERR: I great. p. 1122 on same sūtra. •

1921, a PE OTA YHAURI Yan alertat a true cal ATET ON YT I. 51.

1922. वेदस्वीकरणं पूर्व विचारोऽम्यसनं जपः। तबान चैव शिव्येग्यो दाम्यासोहि qua HRT. II. 34, q. by Aare on T. III, 310 (without name), ar

p. 126 on 17. I. 99 (from 9).

1182

History of Dharmajāstra ( Seo. VII, Ch. XXVIII

matters viz. first memorizing it, reflection over it, constant ro petition of it, japa and imparting it to pupils. These were ideals attained by a few persons only, while most brābmaṇas generally rested content with memoriznig one Voda or a portion of it.

The Pūrvamimāinsāśāstra is the most extensive of all the darsinas. 1923 Śāstra is that which regulates and declares (human ) 3ctivities and abstentions by means of eternal words (Veda) or by works composed by men. 1934 And it has about 2700 sūtras and over 900 adbikaranas (called nyāyas or conclusions on topics for discussion). Some sūtras are often repeated such as ‘Lingadarsanāc-ca’(which occurs about 30 times) and tathā cānyarthadarśanam’ (that occurs about 24 times). An adbi. karapa is described as having five constituents, viz. (1) the topic for discussion, (2) the doubt about it, (3) the prima facie view, (4) the refutation of the prima facio view, (5) the final conclusion. 1925 A sūtra (aphorism) should be concise 1926 (contain a few lettors), but clear in its meaning, substantial, of wide application (lit. facing all directions), should be without pauses or interjected letters and should be faultless. A bhāsya is that which sets out the meaning of the sūtra in sentences that follow the words of the sūtra and that makes its own contribu tion (to the elucidation of the subject of the sūtra), while & vārtika is one that considers what is stated in the sūtra, or what

1923, Tbe Darśanas are many, as appears from the

of Arrarara, bot the orthodox and famous darsanas are six aad ruo io pairs, viz, rare and antigen. Hier and Am, TTATAIFT and TETATAIHI. In I. A. vol. 45 pp. 1-6 and 17–26, it is stated that the Face IDR was not composed by ter who became later on Vidyāraṇya, but was composed by a nephew of Arrarar, who was a son of Arqu (at pp. 22 ff.)

1924. ggparaf fagferai parega Satta al ringar ATTI sfrua il padit on a. 2. I. 1. 3, which is quoted by 981. AT. II. 2 p 288 as from a gerom. The Girst ball is statel. (requiremaja v. 4).

1925. विषयो विशयश्चैव पूर्वपक्षस्तयोत्तरम्। निर्णयश्चेति पश्चाई शाधिकरणं स्मृतम् ॥ 9. by Raiunt p. 92, 3711 poenget of Tragos (Chowk bamba series), Faastat कौमुदी p. 89 (T.S.S.). Some read निर्णयश्चेति सिद्धान्तः, others like माधवाचार्य set out the five as faqa, raste (or free), eta, āh and then,

1926. अल्पाक्षरमसन्दिग्धं सारवद्विश्वतोमुखम् । अस्तोभमनवयं च सर्व सूत्रविदो विदुः । (997 of aanrą p. 82, PATE II. 33. 58, arg 59. 142, graficionit p. 3 which explains traite as a #). The qatil quotes this verse as from पौराणिकs and remarks ‘सर्वतोमुखमिति नानार्थतामाह’ and the com. says ‘अर्थकत्वादेकं वाक्यमिति न्यायस्य सत्राम्यविषयत्वात् न पायभेवः ‘.

Meaning of Vārtika and other words

1183

is omitted or what is not well stated. 1927 The Kavya-mimamsa. of Rajasekhara defines the words sutra, bhasya, vrtti, tika, karika &c. in chap. II.

Having declared in the first sūtra that after a person has studied the Veda and because he has done so, PMS proceeds to say that he should start on the consideration of what dharma 1928 is. The 2nd sūtra, therefore, defines “dharma as an act conducive to a man’s highest good, that is chara cterized by an exhortative (vedic) text.’ Sabara explains that *codanā’ means a sentence that urges or exhorts a person to do an act. So this conveys that the means of knowledge (pramāṇa) as regards dharma are vedio sentences and it also means that what is characterized or indicated by codanā is dharma i.e. the nature (svarupa) of Dharma is made manifest. The word ‘artha’ is put in to exclude acts (from being design ated dharma) that may be mentioned in the veda but the result of doing which is evil, such as the sentence ‘one practising black magic (to harm a person ) may perform the Syena sacrifice.’ This is not dharma, but adharma, since the practice of black magic is condemned as sinful. This vedic sentence does not say that one should inflict injury, it only says that syenayaga brings about injury and if one desires to inflict injury, śyena is the means. 1929 The Slokavartika remarks that the words, ‘codana.’, ‘upadesa’ and ‘vidhi’ are synonyms according to

1927. सूत्रार्थो वर्ण्यते यत्र वाक्यैः सूत्रानुसारिभिः। स्वपदानि च वर्ण्यन्ते भाव्य भाग्य विदो विदुः।, भामती on ब्रह्मसूत्र I. 1. 1quotes a verse ‘लघुनि सूचितार्थानि स्वल्पाक्षर पदानि च । सर्वतः सारभूतानि सूत्राण्याहुर्मनीषिणः1. by युक्तिदीपिका p.33; उक्तानुक्त

दुरुक्तचिन्ताकरं वातिकम्। आनन्दारि on बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत्भाग्यवार्तिक p.7 quotes a verse ‘उक्तानुक्ताद्विरुक्तादिचिन्ता यत्र प्रवर्तते । तं अन्य वार्तिक माहुतिकज्ञा मनीषिणः।” Should we read दुरुक्तादि for द्विरुक्तादि!

1928. शबर says ‘एवमधीतो घेदो धर्मजिज्ञासायां हेतुतिः , अनन्तरं धर्मो जिज्ञासि तव्य इत्यतःशब्दस्य सामध्यम्।, the न्या. र. says एतदुक्तं भवति । वेदाध्ययनादनन्तरमक्ष एवाधीतवेदवारकारणात् तदर्थ धर्मजिज्ञासा कर्तव्येति’ (onv. 1120 प्रतिज्ञासुत्र श्लोकवा).

1929. तस्माञ्चोदनालक्षणोऽर्थः श्रेयस्करः। … य एव श्रेयस्करः स धर्मशब्देनोच्यते। उभयमिह चोदनया लक्ष्यते अर्थोऽनर्थश्चेति। कोऽर्थः, यो निःश्रेयसाय ज्योतिष्टोमादि। कोऽनर्थः, यः प्रत्यवायाय श्येनो बज्र इषुरित्येवमादिः। तत्र अनर्थों धर्म उक्तोमा भूदिति अर्थग्रहणम् । कथं पुनरसावनः। हिंसा हि सा हिंसा च प्रतिषिद्धेति । …नैव श्येनादयः कर्तव्या विज्ञायन्ते। यो हि हिंसितुमिच्छेत् तश्यायमम्युपाय इति तेषामुपदेशः। श्येनेनाभि चरन् यजेत इति हि समामनन्ति, न ‘अभिचरितव्यम्’ इति। शबर on I. I.2 at end, Vide पू.भी. सू. I. 4.5 and III. 8.36-38 for श्येनयाग which is a modification of ज्योतिष्टोम and पू.मी. स. VIL. 1. 13-16 for इषुयाग, where on VII. 1. 13 शबर quotes आप. भी. 22. 7. 18 ‘समानमितरचश्येनेन.’

1184

History of Dharmaśāstra ( Seo. VII, Oh. XXVIII

Śabāra, the bhāsyakāra. The word ‘vidhi’ is ofton translated as injunction (i. e. an authoritative order) but in common parlance ’ injunction’ means ‘restraining a person from doing something.’ Therefore, the word, ‘codanā’ or ‘vidhi’ has often been trans. lated in these pages as ’exhortatory passage or exhortation.’ The result is that dharma means a religious act (a yāga) which confers bighest good. In Rg. X. 90. 16’yajña’ is spoken of as the first (or arcient) dharma (yajñena yajñam-ayajanta devis tāni dharmāṇi prathamāpyāsan) and Sabara (in the bhāsya on P. M.S. I. 1.2) quotes this verse for the proposition that the Veda expressly says that dharma means ‘yāga’. That Vedas have been promulgated for yajña is stated by the Vedānga jyotisa 1930 verse 3 (Vodā hi yajñārthamabhipravșttāh). Medi. eval Dharmasastra writers like the Mitaksara (on Yaj. II. 135), Dayatattva (p. 172), Vy. M. (p. 157) quote a verse ascribed to Dovala or Kātyayana, which provides that all wealth is created for sacrifices, that, therefore, one should expend it on purposes of dharma and not on women, fools and irreligious people inst (vide H. of Dh. Vol. III. p.609 n. 1155 for further passages of similar import and their application).

Sabara introduces the 2nd sūtra by saying that what is to be investigated and understood is what dharma is (i.e. what is ils nature-svarupa), what are its characteristics, what are the means of attaining it, what are deceptive (wrong) means of attaining it and what does it lead to (what the fruit or reward of knowing it is ) and replies that the second sūtra explains the first two of these (viz. what dharma is and what its characteristics are 1933 ).

1930. चोदना चोपदेशश्च विधिश्चैकार्थवादिनः। श्लोकवा. 00 औत्पत्तिकसूत्र. 11, onwhich the काशिका remarks ‘तत्र चोदना विधिपदपर्यायः शब्दविशेषो भाग्यकारस्थाभि मत इत्याह चोदनेति। एतदुक्तं भवति-विधायकशब्द उपदेश इति.’

1931. यज्ञार्थं विहितं वित्तं तस्मात्तद् विनियोजयेत्। स्थानेषु धर्मगुष्टेषु न श्रीमूर्ख विधर्मिषु। The मिता. on या. II, 135 strenuously opposes the proposition

contained in this verse.

1932. स पुनः कथं जिज्ञासितव्यः । को धर्मः कथंलक्षणः। कान्यस्य साधनानि कानि साधनाभासानि किंपरश्चेति। तत्र को धर्मः कथंलक्षण इति एकेनैव छत्रेण व्याख्यातम् … चोदनालक्षणो धर्मः इति। … चोदना इति क्रियायाः प्रवर्तकं वचनमाहुः। आचार्यचोदितः करोमीति हि श्यते। लक्ष्यसे येन तल्लक्षणम्। धूमो लक्षणमनेरिति हि बदन्ति । तया यो लवयते सोऽर्थः पुरुष निःश्रेयसेन संयुनतीति प्रतिजानीमहे। शापरभाष्य on I. 1.23; again on II. 1.1 ‘चोदना च क्रियाया अभिधायक वाक्य वाक्ये च पदानामः । श्लोकवा. ‘तेन प्रवर्तकं वाक्यं शाखेऽस्मिश्चोदनोच्यते’ चोदनावत्र v.3): तत्र यो धर्मः इत्युद्दिश्य स चोदनालक्षणश्चोदनाप्रमाण इति प्रमाणवचन इति प्रमाणवचनव्यक्तिः। यश्चोदनालक्षण इत्युदिश्य स धर्म इति स्वरूपवचनव्यक्तिः।

What is the special province of Mimārsū

1185

That is, ‘codanās’ ( vedio hortatory texts) are the pramāṇa (means of knowledge) about dharma and whatever is laid down by hortatory vedic texts is dharma (i. 6. Dharmasyarūpa). The relation of Dharma to the Veda and the Pūrvamīmāṁsā-śāstra is clearly and succinctly brought out in a verse of Kumarila himself as follows: 1933 " When discussion about the correct knowledge of Dharma is being carried on, Veda being the means of such knowledge, mimāṁsā will supply complete information about the subject of the procedure or method.’ Just as even if a man has good sight be cannot perceive anything unless there is light, 80 unless a man knows the methods laid down by PMS he cannot correctly judge what Dharma is. Jaimini thon exam mines the means of knowledge (pramāpas) and holds that except sabda (i. e. the Veda) there is no means of knowledge about Dharma. One cannot perceive directly what Dharma is i. e, Dharma is not pratyakṣa. All the other pramānas except sabda are based on pratyakṣa and therefore they cannot define or explain what Dharma is. According to Kumārila there are six pramāṇas, pratyaksa (direct perception), anumāna (inference), upamāna (analogy), sabda, arthāpatti and abhāya (non-exis tence). Prabhākara does not accept the last as a pramāṇa.

The subjects of the twelve chapters of the PMS are stated in the J. N.M.V. to be respectively: (1st chapter) pramāna (means of knowledge; (2nd) bheda (six grounds on whioh religious rites are distinguished from each other and the distinctions of rites as principal and subsidiary); (3) Sosa (the meaning of seṣa boing ‘ancillary or what subserves another that is called seṣin or what is helpful to another’), how it is employed and the relative strength of śruti, linga, vākya, prakarana, sthāna and samākhyā;(4) prayukti (what is obligatory and what is addressed to the performor’s consol ence i. . what is kratvartha and what is puruṣārtha); (5) Krama (principles of settling the order or sequence depending on śruti &c.); (6) adhikāra (persong entitled to perform yāga ); (7) sama nyātideśa ( extension of items in the model yāga to its modifica. tions);(8) Viśeṣātidesa (extension of items to individual rites); (9) ūha (adaptation of mantras and samskāras ); (10) badha

1933. धर्म प्रमीयमाणे हि वेदेन करणात्मना। इतिकर्तग्यताभार्ग मीमांसा पूरयिष्यति । great (of FAME) g. by TETTER (G. O, S., 1956, p. 36). This verse is introduced with the following lacid remarks ‘वेदवाक्यार्थसंशये सति शिर्णया पयिकन्यायनिवन्धनं हि शास्त्रं मीमांसा। …सा च करणीभूतस्य वेदस्येतिकर्तव्यता। यथा चक्षुष आलोकः। यथा चानुमानस्य व्याप्तिस्मरणम् । यथा घोपमानस्य साहश्यम् । यथा पा

fuiya: Fatura: 11

A, D, 149

1186

History of Dhurmutastru (Sec. VII, OL, XXVIII

(omitting certain items or details in modifioations of model yāgas; (11) tantra ( one item being useful and enough for several acts or persons ); (12) prasanga ( extension of applica tion). In the four pādas of the first adhyāya four matters are respectively dealt with viz. vidhi (hortatory texts ), arthavada (laudatory or explanatory passages including mantras ), smrtis (including customs and usages) and names ( of rites, such as udbhid, citrā). Sabara himself gives a summary 1934 of the first chapter of PMS as follows; viz, the pramāṇas; principles of the conclusions about vidhi, arthuvada, mantra and smrtis, examina. tion of guṇavidbi ( texts laying down some subsidiary or acoes sory matter as in ‘dadhna juhoti’, where curds are prescribed as offering) and nāmadheya; the deterinination of doubtful matters by the help of the remainder of a passage or by the sāmarthya (the suitability of things for the actions prescribed ). It is unnecessary for the purpose of this section to furnish hero a summary of the contents of the other chapters of the PMS. For a tolerably full summary of the contents of the twelve chapters of the PMS the reader is referred to the author’s paper a brief sketch of the Pūrvamimāinsā system’ in ABORI, FOL VI. pp. 6-12. At the beginning of each chapter Sabara sum marizes what he dealt with in the preceding chapter and sets out the principal topics of that chapter.

The P. M. S. itself is of enormous extent and it has been overlaid with commentaries and with numerous commentaries on commentaries. Even before Sabara there was a commentator described as Vșttikāra, 1935 who is mentioned in several places

1934. JYÀStar Alor HUS (TĦI TrangH i ria faoffer: 1 गुणविधिर्नामधेयं परीक्षितम् । सन्दिग्धानामर्धानां वाक्यशेषावर्थाचास्यवसानमुक्तम्। शबर at the beginping of II. 1. 1. The artaraf explains ara: jo the above as follows ‘विष्यादितत्त्वनिीतिः प्रमाणेनैव स्थिता। समस्तो विप्रथमः पावश्चोदनासूत्रपरिकर। … श्रुतिमूलत्वं विज्ञानस्य स्मृतिप्रामाण्ये तस्वम्। नामधेयस्य चोदनान्तर्गतत्वारयमाणपम् । सन्दिग्धनिर्णये वाक्यशेषसामर्ययोः प्रामाण्यमित्येवं समस्तमध्यायं प्रमाणलक्षणमाचक्षते।’. As the P. M. S. is divided into twelve chapters it is called report.

1935. Sabara expressly mentions (Bhagavāo) Upavarga (od 1. 1. 5 ) as to what is ‘śabda’, while Ramanuja says (note 1886 above) that Bodhāyada composed a bhāsya on both P. M. S and v. s. There are controversies about Vrttikāra, Upavarsa and Bodbāyada. Vide M. M, Prof. Kuppuswami in Pro, of 3rd All India 0. Con, pp. 465-468 and Pandit V. A, Ramaswami in I. H. &. vol. X. pp. 431-433 for identity of Vettikāra and Upavarga, while Dr. S. K. Iyengar in Manimekalai in its historic setting’ p. 189 and

(Continued on next pago)

Vrttikāra and Śabara

1187

by Sabara (sometimes with great respect) viz. on II. 1. 32 and 33, II. 2.26, IL. 3. 16, III. 1.6 (‘atra bhagavān Vșttikāraḥ’), VIII. 1.1. (‘yrttikāraih’ in the plural), X. 4. 23. On P. M. 8. I. 1. 3-5, II, 1, 33, VII. 2,6 Śabara differs from Vrttikāra. The earliest extant commentary on the P.-M. S. is the bhāsya of Śabara. Sabara quotes many verses concerning PMS matters and a few also on other topics. Verses quoted on PMS matters are found on II. 1. 32 (one on p. 434 and another on p. 435), II. 1. 33 (P. 436, two verses ), 1936 II. 2 1 (p. 462, two versos on adrstārtha), on IV.3.3 (one verse on p. 1247), IV. 4. 21 (p. 1279 a verse on piṇdapitȚyajña), IV. 4. 24 (p. 1280 an Aryā verse on the girdle of sacrificial post), IV. 4. 28 (p. 1281 about ‘svaru’), V. 2. 23 (p. 1319, same verge on XII. 2. 30 p. 2251), VII. 1. 12 (p. 1534 definition of atideśa), X. 4. 20 (p. 1924 one verse ), XI. 1.1 (p. 2096 on tantra and prasanga), XII. 3. 20 (P. 2262 on bhāsika-svara). All these verses are apparently quoted by Sabara from some work or commentary on the PMS or on Pūrvamimāmsā, one or two probably from some Srautasātra and one or two may be his own composition.

Many glosses on PMS composed by writers of the 10th and following centuries are extant, of which 22 are referred to on p. 166 of vol. VI. of the Sarasyatibhavana Studies (Benares) by M. M. Gopinath Kaviraja in his paper on the ‘Mimāmgā Msa. in the Government Sanskrit Library at Benares’ (pp. 165-196). On Sabara’s bhāṣya there were numerous commentaries as is

( Continued on next page) the present author io JBBRAS for 1921 pp. 83–98 at p. 84, hold that Vrttikāra and Upavarṣa are different. M. M. Kuppuswami Sastry (in Pro. of 3rd O. Conference pp. 465-468) bolds Bodhāyana and Upavarsa identical, Saṅkarācārya twice dames Upavarsa with great respect ( 48 bhagavāo) od VS 1. 3. 28 anā 711. 3. 53, but he nowhere mentions Bodhāyana to whose extensive commentary Rāmānuja refers at the beginning of bis bbāsya an Vs. Vide J. I. H. Madras, vol. VII. pp. 107-115 on Bodhāyada and Upavarsa and V. A. Ramaswami Sastry’s Intro. to the Tattvabinda pp. 14-18 (1936). Vide I. H, Q. vol, X. pp. 431-452 on ‘Vșttikāras of Pūreamimamsāsūtra.”

1936. It is remarkable that the two verses about the ten topics dealt with by Brabmaṇas (on P. M. S. II. 1.33 ) occur also in the Brahmāoda purana II. 33. 47-48. I शवर they are: हेतुनिर्वचनं निन्दा प्रशंसा संशयो विधिः। परक्रिया पुराकल्पो च्यषधारणकल्पना ॥ उपमानं दशेते तु विधयो माझणस्य तु एतत्स्यात् सर्वषेवेषु नियत विधिलक्षणम् ।. There are a few variants in the cाण्ड. The verse about fermens on IV. 3.3 is introduced with the words grande fa 499 न्यायषिकः श्लोकमामनन्ति-कुर्यास्क्रियेत.

1188

History of Dharmajāstra (Soo, VII, Oh. XXVII

clearly indicated by the Slokavārtika that says that the very first sentence 1937 of Sabara’s bhāsya was interpreted in six different ways before it by commentators and by the Tantrayārtika that the bhāsyakāra did not notice six sūtras after the ’nivitādhi karana’(III. 4.1-9) and that commentators differed in their reasons for the omission, but all commentators other than Sabara did explain those six sūtras. 1938 None of the commentaries composed before Kumārila is now available.

Kumārila wrote the slokavārtika on Sabara’s blāsya on P.M.S. I, 1 (in about 4000 verses) and the voluminous Tantra vārtika on I. 2 to the end of chap. III of PMS and the Tup-tikā on P. M. S. IV-XII (stray notes, not a regular commentary ). Kumārila is credited with having composed two more com mentaries, ‘Madhyama-ṭiki’ and ‘Br̥hat tikā’ on P. M S. 1939 The latter has been referred to by the Nyāyaratnakara 1940 and the Nyāyasudhā on Tantravārtika quotes several verses from it (on pp. 201, 329-30, 393) and the Jaiminiya-sūtrarthasangraha of Rsiputra Parameśvara quotes Br̥hat-tikā several times. On the Slokavārtika two commentaries have so far been published viz. the Nyāyaratnākara of Pārthasarathi and the Kāśika of Sucaritamiśra (in T.S.S.). In the Introduction to his English translation of the Tantravārtika, M. M. Dr. Ganganath Jha notices eight commentaries on the Tantravārtika of which the Nyāyasudhā or Rāṇaka of Someśvara (published in Chowkhamba Series) is a very exhaustive one, the others being in Ms. The

1937. लोक इत्यादि भाव्यस्य षडान्संप्रचक्षते। भाष्यकारानुसारेण प्रयुक्तस्यादितः que salen. ( salt, verse 26 )

1938. अतः परं पद सत्राणि भाष्यकारण न लिखितानि तत्र व्याख्यातारो विवदन्ते । केचिदाहुविस्मृतानि। लिखितो अन्धः प्रलीन इत्यपरे। फलात्वापेक्षितानीत्यन्ये। अनार्षे यत्वादित्यपरे। …वृत्त्यन्तरकारैस्तु सर्वेाख्यातानि। सन्ति च जमिनरप्रकाराण्यप्यनत्यन्त. TEATTEOTI 1997. after 111, 4.9 p. 895.

1939. Vide Kumārila and the Brbat-tikā’ by K. S. Ramasvami Sastri and A. Śhaṅkaran in Pro. of 3rd All ladia O. Conf. pp. 523-529 where 00 P. 526 the Sarvadarśanakaumudi of Mādbava-bharati is quoted as cata. loguing all the five works of Kumārila and ibid. p. 475 where Prof. Kuppu swami cites the same Sarvadarśanakaumudi.

1940. सामभावोस्थितामन्यामर्धापत्तिमदाहरेत् । पक्षदोषेषु चान्यासाठवाहरणविस्तरः॥ segona. (turfagre v. 9), on which 7972, remarks “sputarunCTOTTACI

दाहरणप्रपः पक्षदोषावसरे ‘भोत्रादिनास्तितायामित्यादिना वृहीकायां दशित बस्याह Tin tṛ .Commentaries and works on PMS

1189

Pupṭika 1941 has some regular commentaries but none is published. The Tantraratna of Pārthasārathimiśra deals at some length with the same chapters of P. M. 8. (published partly in Prince of Wales, Sarasvatibhavana 8.). On Sabara’s bhāṣya Prabhākara wrote a commentary called Bṛhati, a portion of which on the Tarkapāda (PMS I. 1) with the commentary Rjuvimalāpañoikā of Salikanāthamiśra has been edited by Pandit 8. K, Ramanatha Sastri and published by the Madras University (1934). The Sastra-dipikā of Pārthasārathi is not a regular commentary on the P. M. S. but it is a classic work on the P. M. S. and follows the views of Kumārila. Another very useful work is the Jaiminiya-nyāya-mālā-vistāra 1942 of Mādbavācārya (published by Anan. Press, Poona) that gives summaries in verse of the adhikaranas of the PMS with brief prose comments and also points out some of the differences of Prabhākara (called ‘guru’ by Sālikanātha and others) from Kumārila (in all about 15 points of difference being noted between the two de regards the first chapter of the PMS and three in the 2nd chapter). Śalika nātha wrote an independent work called Prakaraṇapancikā (published in the Chowkhamba 8.8.). There is another work of Prabhākara’s school called Nayaviveka of Bhavanātha or Bhava deva ( ed. by Pandit 8. K. Ramanath Sastri and published by the Madras University in 1937). This Bhavanātha is eulogised in the Madanaratnapradīpa on Vyavahāra (pp. 324-325, published by the Anup S. Library, Bikaner, 1948) as the sun to the lotus of Prabhākara’s doctrine. The Tantrarahasya of Rāmāpujācārya (2nd ed. published in G O. 8, 1956) composed about 1750 A. D. is the last noted work of the Prābhākara School and this work furnishes some useful information about the works of Prabhākara and the commentaries thereon by Sālikanātha. A verse in the Prabodliacandrodaya ( Act II) after referring to Guru, Kumārila

1941. It is difficult to explain the name erant. It is explained as ad abridged form of Saugerent or gq is an indeclinable in the sense of small ‘दुप इत्यल्पार्थेऽव्ययम्।

1942. The 8.41. . R. verse 9 says: puna e tatarar Hurai, and it is remarked Fauna FEITTHVERFU: EHEHenta HAIGUO FETARETH 1. This works puts down the number of frances in g. #. . at 1000, while some other works say there are only 915 adhi karanas. The aftATHTHTHUR of T he (pub. by Haridas Gupta at Benares in 1904) gives the summary of 1000 adbikaranas jo 250 verses, the . concluding verse being serierna Hrana i aitavaratalo FICHERHEITSTEIL 19,

1190

History of Dharmaśāstra 1 Sec. VII, Ch. XXVIII

(or Tautātita), Salikanātha and Vacaspati refers to Mahodadhi and Māhāyrati (work of Mahā vrata), the last two being mentioned in the Nayaviveka (pp 271, 273 respectively).

Prabhākara differed from Kumārila on numerous points. 1913 The divergence starts from the very first sūtra of the P.M.S. (as the note below will show 1914). Prabhākara is called guru’ by Salikanātha in many places in the Prakarapapancikā (vide first Intro. verse and pp. 17, 32 &c.). There is a very great divergence of views about the relative chronological position of Kumārila and Prabhākara. Vide ’the Prābhākara Suhool’ (1911) by M. M. Ganganath Jha, A, B, Keith’s Karmamimāīnsi’ (1921) pp 9-11, Pro. of 2nd All India 0. Conf. pp. 408-41% and Pro. of 3rd All I. O. Conference pp. 471-481 (both by Prof. Kuppuswami Sastri), J. O. R. Madras, rol. I pp. 131-144 and 203–210. The fundamental question is whether Salikanātha was a direct pupil of Prabhākara or only a later follower. From several considera tions the present writer holds that sālikanātha was a direct pupil of Prabhākara. Sālikapātba not only speaks of Prabhākaraguru,

1943. Vide Journal of the Benares Hindu University, vol. II, pp. 309 335 for collection in Sanskrit of the points of difference between Prabhākara and Kamārila (called Bhatta), particularly pp. 331–335 for a table of the points of difference. Vide also lotro. to Tattvabiadu by Pandit V. A. Rama. svami Sastri, 1936, pp. 37-40 for a few important points on which the two differ,

1944. According to the Bbāṭta school, the visayavākya’ of PMS I. 1. 1 is FaltzTUTSEwea: in maga XI. 5. 6 3 add it. 2. II. 15,1 ( 1. rats Eet T atjana Tarde wanita). According to the star school the visayavakya is अटवर्षे ब्राह्मणमुपनयीत तमध्यापयीत, the idea in this latter case being that stody of Veda (Vedādbyayana) is only an aiga (a subsidiary matter) of the vidhi to teach a student the Veda after his upapayaga. The objections of tbe Frābbākara school against the visayavākya ‘svādhyāyosdbyetavyaḥ are tbat it has a seen fruit or reward and that wbed a seen fruit can be found it is improper to suppose that there is an unseen reward. Vide H. of Dh. vol. III. p. 8370. 1628 where several passages from $abara and others are cited about this maxim. The generala (pp. 88-89 00 Ara) after quoting P.M.S. III. 2. 1 wiads op ‘sa terdaT EEAE fica a. I have aot been able to find from what Vedic work the sentence ‘Head…gora is taken. It seems that the view that this passage contains a vidbi about teaching the Veda is only an inference from passages like Manu II. 140, III, 2, and Gauta. ma I. 10-11. The faretur (op p. 6) admits tbls: garter catu: ,

gring … fara’ (AZ 2. 140) F Fugla:. According to this 79947 is only an aiga of the अध्यापनविधि. 00 p. 225 of the पञ्चपादिका of पापाद (published with two commentaries in the Govt. Oriental Serles, Madras, 1958) there is a scathing criticism of this facra* (3489 … 1a).

Prabhākua and Salikanstha

1191

but in one place states our teacher does not tolerate this’. 1945 Salikanātha in his Prakarapapañoikā quotes Beveral verses of the Slokavārtika (e. g. on p. 5 he quotes and criticizes verse 11 of ślokavārtika quoted in n. 1916 above, on p. 122 quotes Śloka vārtika v. 28 of abhāva-pariocheda and on p. 114 verse 21 of arthāpatti-pariccheda ). Mapdanamiśra wrote several works on PM viz. Vidhi-viveka (published at Benares with Nyāyakapikā of Vācaspati), Bhāvanāviveka (with com. of Umbeka, edited in S. B. series), Vibbramaviveka and Mimāṁsānukramani (Chow. S. S.). The Sastradīpikā (on PMS II.1.1) cites Mandana’s explanation of Kumārila’s verse 1916. Therefore, Mandana is later than Kumārila or was a younger contemporary of Kumā rila and flourished about 690 to 710 A. D. Sālikanātha quotes Vidhiviveka of Mandana (pp. 243, 302) in Prakarapapañoikā, p. 178 and Brahmasiddhi in Rjuvimalā (p. 20). Moreover, Śāntarakṣita in his Tattvasangraha (GOS) frequently criticizes the kārikās of Kumārila (without naming him) and his pupil Kamalaśila names Kumārila many times. Sāntarakṣita does not name or quote Prabhākara. He flourished between

705-762 A. D. (vide Foreword to Tattvasangraha p XVI, GOS). Therefore, Kumārila must be placed about 650-700 A, D. As Salikanātha quotes the Slokavārtika and Mand ana’s works he would have to be placed between 750-800 A. D. If Sālikanātha was a direct pupil of Prabhākara it follows that the latter (who appears to be unknown to Sāntarakṣita, should have been & contemporary (i. e. should be held to have flourished nearly between 700–760 A. D. or a little later) and was later than Kumārila. There is a tradition that Prabhākara was a pupil of Kumārila. Traditions (such as of

1945. यच्च बढ़ीषु ज्वालास्वेकवर्तिवर्तिनीषु ज्वालावं सामान्यं प्रत्यभिज्ञागोचर: Baitanga gert TOTA 9 uogia i Foto . 31. He would have said simply . ‘g oala, if he were a later follower and not a pupil.

1946. graeinigai on g. 1. &. II. 1. 2 (p. 101) says: rar: 1 ravjeqintant … troya ul. This is a treat p. 382; then waititat pro ceeds: faga SAVETA CTATEU … Wat ro gontai). This is an p. 80 (with slight variations). The Hamad on p61 quotes FUT p a rt … satya, This occurs in mar. p. 381. The author regrets that M. M. Dr. Jha (in Intro, to · Pūrvamimamsa in its sources’ p. 21) assorts, on the very slender basis of the above quoted words of the Sastradipikā, that Mandana wrote a commentary on the Tantravārtika. M, M. Jha blmself felt pneasy about his own sweeping assertion (p, 22 bottom), but he was not able to discover the verse of the Bbāvapāviveka referred to above,

1192

History of Dhurmatāstra ( Boo, VII, Ch. XXVIII

the nino gems at the court of Vikramiditya) often arise without muob evidence to support them; they should not, however, be summarily rejected but should be tested by other available ovidence.

At one time Prabhākara appears to have occupied a very prominent position. The Gadag inscription of Vikramaditya VI (in 1098 A. D.) refers to the founding of a school for teaching Prabhākaras’ system at Lakkigundi (vide E. I. vol. XV p. 348). This and the reference in the Mitākṣarā (on Yaj. II, 114) to the views of Guru on 1911 tbe Lipsāsūtra (PMS. IV. 1. 2.) in the third alternative interpretation put on that sūtra, holding that the rules about the acquisition of wealth (in Gautama and other smrtis) are purusirtha (addressed to the conscience of the performer of sacrifices ) and not krat varthu, show the outstanding position that the Prābhākara school occupied in the 11th century A. D. in the Carnatic and Maratha countries. The Madanapārijāta, a north Indian work (1360-1390 A. D.), quotes a half rerse of Guru 1948 (on p. 89). The Smṛticandrikā (on Vyavahāra p. 257), the Viramitrodaya (on vyavahāra p. 523) and the V. M. (p. 89) refer to the Nayaviveka of Bhavanātha, alaost the last outstanding work of the Prābhākara school Gradually, the Prabhākara School lost ground and the Bhāļļa school of Kumārila has been most predominant for several centuries. The present writer holds that Prabhākara is later then Kumārila but he is not in a position to say from whom he borrowed his peculiar views or whether they were started by him for the first time (though this appears more plausible). Pandit K. S. Ramaswami Sastri (in Intro. to Tantrarahasya, G. O. S., 2nd edition of 1956) holds that Prabhākara took his views from Badari (p. XXV). The learned Pandit offers hardly any tangible evidence for his remark ( on p. XIX of the Intro.) that Bidari held views similar

1947. नियतोपायकं स्वत्वं लोकसिमेवेति न्यायविदो मन्यन्ते। तथाहि लिप्सामने तृतीये वर्णके इण्यार्जननियमानां त्वर्थत्वे स्वत्वमेव न स्यात् स्वत्वस्यालोकिकत्वादिति पूर्वपक्षा सम्भवमाशय दण्यार्जनस्य प्रतिग्रहादिना स्वस्थसाधनलं लोकसिद्धमिति पूर्वपक्षः समर्थितो गुरुणा। ननु च दण्यार्जनस्य कवर्धखे स्वत्वमेन न भवतीति याग एवन संवर्तेन । मलपितमिदं केनापि अर्जनं स्वत्वं नापादयतीति विप्रतिषिद्धमिति वदता । तथा सिद्धान्तपि स्वत्वस्य लौकिक समझीकृत्यैव विचारपयोजनमुक्तम् -‘अतो नियमातिक्रमः पुरुषस्य न कसोः इति। मिता. OD 91. II. 114.

1948. Parauretri: *172:1 gurat TEATER : HARAP वाद-इति सूत्रकारवचनात् । कर्तश्च शेषत्वमुपदिष्टं गुरुणा। अधिकारो हि यशेषक: HUR RRi Pal # Ta p. 89. goprat… Para is . II. 122.

Badari and Bhartzmitra

1193

to thogo of Bhartrmitra who go interpreted the PMS as to make it atheistic. Bādari’s views on Mimāmsā matters are quoted only four times in PMS viz. in III, 1, 3 (on what matters are sega), VL 1.27 (that vedio sacrifices can be performed oven by sūdras), VIII. 3. 6. (purely sacrificial matter about application of Ṣadaba procedure), IX. 3. 33. (about method of singing sūman, Bādari’s viow being accepted by Jaimini). In none of these does one find the slightest touch of Bhartṛmitra’s atheistic tendencies or of Prabhākara’s special propositions,

From Kumārila onwards there are numerous commentaries, commentaries on commentaries and manuals on some aspects of mlmāınsa doctrines or of the contents of the PMS. Several difficult questions of identity and relationship among some of the early writers whose works are wholly or partially extant have also arisen during the last fifty years and many papers have been written. The present writer has read most of them, but if the whole evidence is to be set out and discussed a bulky volume of several hundred pages would have to be written. That cannot be done here. The several questions of identity and relationship are set out below and the present author’s replies to all of them will be given with a little discussion on a few out of them :

(1) Whether Prabhākara was a pupil of Kumārila; the reply is that there is no substantial or compelling evidence for this except tradition, but Prabhākara is certainly later than Kumārila;

(2) Whether Salikanātha is a direct disciple of Prabhākara - yos;

(3) Whether Mandana was a disciple of Kumārila; there is no substantial evidence for an affirmative reply, but Mandana certainly explains in bis Bhāvanāviveka a verse of Kumarila and quotes another verse from Tantravārtika. Vide note 1946 above. In the Vidhiviveka also (Benares ed. 1907), which Mandana wrote after Bhāvanāviveka he quotes (on p. 15 abhi dhābhāvanā…linādayah) from Tantra vārtika (p. 378) and on p. 315 of the Vidhiviveka quotes (yathoktam-śreyaḥsādhanatā … …pratiyate’) from Slokavārtika (codanāsūtra, Verse 14). Mandana also quotes a passage from the Bșhati (p. 38) of Prabhākara in Vidhiviveka 1949 (p. 109). So Mandana, if not a disciple, wag

1949. omaaet format : Tamare i papireraren p. 109, on which the Furyffuretat of a remarks are SOTTRINad gada: Heh’. This sentence occurs in het p. 38 (asura, pub. by Madras Un.,

1934 ).

8. D. 150

1194

History of Dharmaśāstra (Sec. VII, Ch. XXVIII

certainly later than or a younger contemporary of Kumārila.

(4) Are Mandaria and Umbeka identical-no; Umbeka wrote a commentary on the Bhāvanāviveka of Mandana in which on pp. 17 and 76 he discusses various readings in it; it is not possible to hold that a writer would discuss variant readings in his own work (as would follow if the two were identical).

(5) Are Maṇdana and Viśvarūpa identical - No;

(6) Are Viśvarūpa and Sureśvara identical -yes; the latter name being assumed after Viśvarūpa became a saunyāsin.

(7) Is Umbeka identical with Bhavabhūti – the evidence is not enough to give a definite affirmative roply; but it is likely that they may be identical.

(8) Is Umbeka a disciple of Kumirila – y6s; as shown in note below. 1950

1950. That l’abeka was a pupil of Kumārila follows from the following considerations. In his com, on the Bhāvanāviveka (p 43 ) Umbeka quotes a half verse from Bhattapāda (TuT YEYTT: Trace EUAUFTATTI TUT 2 ) and on the same page be quotes another half verse’ TO TF07-37744

TRETT ETA HTETET Everfura’. These two balves make one verse on p. 383 of the Tantravārtika, the latter half of which is again ascribed by Umbeka (on p. 92 of bis com. Od the same work) to Bhattapada. It follows tbat Bhattapada was bis guru. Prof. Kunban Raja tries to wriggle out by advancing the theory (on pp. XXXVII-XXXVIII of bis Tatro.) that some later scribe ioserted the word ‘guruṇā’ and argues that there is ao proof of Bhattapāda being Umbeka’s guru. Uoless another reliable as, of Umbeka’s commentary is found whicb omits the word ‘guruṇā’ or substitutes in its place some other word it is not open to us to hold that tbe reading is not trustworthy and then build positive or negative propositions on our own speculations alone. The Uveyaka whose view is quoted by Kamalasila in Tattvasaógraha (G. O. S p 812 ’ nar

MICHER ATH atat STATOTT, FR art, ata hatiani) is probably gran, whose pame is written in several different ways in works and moss. (vide M. M. Jba’s latro, to Bhāvanāviveka p. 2). If tbis identity is correct 3 must bave fourished before 750 A, D and chronology would not be against Unbeka being a pupil of Kumārila. The Yukti-snebaprapūrani on Sastra dipikā quotes Umbekabbatta in several places. But one loog quolation from Umbeka on p. 30 is very striking. In this both Sabara and Vārtika kāra (i e Kumārila) are severely criticized and after quoting the famous verse frequently cited in the Mabābhārata viittaneet … giant paura he discards the views of the Vārtikakāra. Sabara is separated from Umbeka by several centuries and was oot Umbeka’s guru. Therefore, this passage (that occurs on pp. 105-108 of the arcuielil of Umbeka on slokavārtika, pob. by Madras Uo, in 1940 ) leads to the inference that the Vārtikakāra was

(Continued on next page )

Chronologiacal position of Kumarila and others 1195 (9) Is Sureśvara, a pupil of Saṅkarācārya ? –Yes. .

The result of the above replies is that the following is the most probable- chronological order of Parvamimārsā writers mentioned in questions 1 to 9 viz. Kumārila, Prabhākara, Mandana, Umbeka, Sālikanātha. They flourished between 650 A. D. to 750 A. D., Kumārila boing the earliest of the five, Prabhākara (who quotes Kirātārjuniya II, 30 twice on pp. 24%, 343) and Mandana being contemporaries or Mandana being younger than Prabhākara.

The opening and ending verses in Sureśvara’s Vārtika on the bhāṣya of Śhaṅkara on the Bṛ. Up. and the Tai, Up. leave no room for doubt that he was a disciple of Śhaṅkara.

From the present author’s paper in JBBRAS for 1928, pp. 289-293 and Prof. Kuppuswami’s paper on ‘Mandana, Sureśvara equation in the History of Vedānta’in ABORI Vol. 18 pp. 121 157 it follows that Mandana and Sureśvara are not identical.

Some remarks in the learned Introduction of Prof. Kunhan Raja to the edition of Umbeka’s Com. on the Ślokavārtika invito criticism. Prof. Raja (on p. XLIX) states that his attempt has been only to raise doubts and to attempt at weighing the evid. ence for and against various theories. The present writer has no serious objection to this. But he thinks that Prof. Raja has gone wrong in his interpretation of words like ‘anupasitagura vas-codayanti’(p.33) and ‘anupāsitaguruprajñā-vilasitam-iti"1951 grantha-jñāna-mānino manyante’ (p. 30). He starts (XLII) by saying “whether it meant (i.e. anupasitaguru’ meant) one by

and against you this. But he thing like anupāsitagu 1951

(Continued from last page) Umbeka’s guru. The युक्तिनेहमपूरणी writes ‘अबोम्बेकमहेरिद तुपातिककारीय दूषणं समर्थनं सर्वमेवालूनविशीर्णमित्यादिना श्येनादौ न कस्यचिदनर्थत्वम् … तस्यानर्थप्रति पादनपरं श्येनो वज्र इत्यादि भाग्यमुपेक्षणीयम् । गुरोरप्य … विधीयते इत्यनेन अन्येन वार्तिक भाव्यं च दूषितम् ।. It is quite clear that at least the युक्तिनेहमपूरणी holds that the वार्तिक view is discarded by उम्बेक. The words इदं वार्तिककारीयं दृषणं… विशीर्णम् occur on p. 105 (at end) of the तात्पर्यटीका; the words श्येनो पन पुल occur in Sabarabhāṣya on p. 18 (Ādan, ed.). The verse ginecual serta occurs on p. 108 of meeêrfil.

1951. The words are to be dissolved as haura: 95: dra (ord: if St Thayra: occurs ) art (or aqi) aṣit T: , 91a: gota gan )

U #19: 341…Tfat (in the Introductory remarks in Tātparyaṭikā to Sloka vārtika verse 2). In this last the word ‘guru’ is meant for Kumārlla’s guru (or gurus) to whom he makes obeisance in the 2nd verse, while with regard to the objector, who is ridiculed, guru is meant to refer to Kumārila.

1196

History of Dharmatūstra | Sec. VII, Ch. XXVIII

one by whom

one who waita made them bis owoca-ās literally

whom the teacher was not respected or a teacher who was not respected (by his disciples)’ and then proceeds but the expres sion ‘upāsitagurutām’ (appearing in the commentary on the 2nd verse of the Sloka vārtika) settles the point. It must mean ‘one by whom the teacher was not respected’. ‘Upāsita-guru’ literally means ‘one who waited on the guru i. e, listened to the explanations of his teacher and made them bis own’. ‘Honoured’ is at most a secondary meaning of ‘upāsita’. Upa-ās literally means ‘sit near, wait upon’. I fail to see how it settles the point. The word ‘upāsita-gurutām’ (when introducing the 2nd intro. verse of the Slokavārtika) is applied by Umbeka to Kumarila himself in relation to the Slokavārtika verse abhi vandya gurūpādau’. It means the characteristic or quality of one who has served his teacher i. e. who has carefully listened to what tbe guru expounded and understood it,’ The exprossion ‘anupāsitaguru’ (which, according to Prof. Raja, always refers to Prabbākara) frequently (vide also pp. 14, 52, 75, 291, 441 ) used by Umbeka means ‘he or those who have not waited upon the guru and listened to his words carefully and therefore have failed to grasp the correct meaning of the passages’. The infer ence suggested by these words of derision is that the objector (either Prabhākara or some one else ) has not understood the doctrine taught by Kumārila to him and the present author is disposed to hold that the frequent emphasis on the word ‘guru’ in anupasitaguru’ is a veiled reference to Prabhākara-guru (as Sālikanātha puts his nanie in his Prakarana-pancikā Prabba kara-guror drstyā), who was Kumārila’s pupil but deviated from bis guru’s doctrines and wrote against them and Umbeka attacks and derides him for this. Supposing that Prabhākara had once been & pupil of Kumārila and later on propounded views that very much diverged from Kumārila’s, it is natural if Umbeka took up the cudgels on behalf of Kumarila and attacked Frabbā. kara as one who had forsaken lis Guru’s views, had not digested them properly and had written a work (not now available but well-known to Umbeka) severely attacking Kumārila. Prof. Raja (Intro. pp. XLIII and XLIV) throws out the suggestion that on p. 14 and p. 291 Umbeka possibly suggests that Prabhā kara preceded Kumārila. There is nothing of the kind. Umbeka holda that Prabhākara had not grasped his master’s doctrines and tries to show what the real doctrine misunderstood

by Prabhākara was.

• It appears desirable to get out a tentative chronological table

of the outstanding works and writers of the Pūrvam māmsā, with

Probable dates of prominant writers on PM 1198 a few remarks here and there. Most of the dates are a ‘proximate and tentative.

Pūrvamīmārsāsūtra of Jaimini - 400 B. C. to 200 B.O.

Vșttikāra - There is great conflict of views about the person who the Vșttikāra quoted several times by Sabara was. Pārthasarathi in Śāstradipikā p. 48 (first line) holds that he is Upavarṣa. Vșttikāra is cited with great respect by Sabara, but he also differs from him frequently.. The Prapancahrdaya (p. 39) attributes to Bodhāyana an extensive commentary called Kṛtakoṭi on both mimāṁsās. It is remarkable that Bodhāyana is not mentioned by name by any early work on P.M. S. nor doos Śhaṅkara mention him though he twice mentione Upavarṣa. Rāmānujācārya in the opening words of his bhāṣya on Brahma sutra refers to the extensive commentary of Bodhāyana on the Brahmasūtra. But he does not say that Bodhāyana commented on P. M. S. The present author is not even now prepared to hold that Vṛttikāra mentioned by Sabāra so often is identical with Upavarṣa. Sabara cites at some length the different inter pretation of PMS I. 1. 3-5 by Vșttikāra and in the midst of it mentions (on p. 45 ) by name the view of Upavarṣa on ‘what is sabda’. He appears to regard the two as different. The fact that the Tantravārtika (pp. 602-3 on II. 3. 16 ) appears to identify Upavarṣa with Vrttikāra is not conclusive. From Kumārila himself we know that several Vșttis were written on PMS before as well as after Sabara. So even Upavarsa may have been deemed to be Vșttikāra by Kumārila (on II, 3. 16 ) and his views quoted, though the Vrttikāra in other places in Sabara’s bhāṣya may be different.

Upavarṣa - between 100 B. C. to 100 A.D.

Bhavadāsa - The Slokavārtika (Pratijñāsūtra, v. 63) men tions him by name and verse 33 of the same as explained by the Nyāyaratnākara shows that Bhavadāsa was deemed to be earlier than Sabara by the Slokavārtika; between 100–200 A.D.

Savara – between 200-400 A.D. (nearer the former date ). From the Tantravārtika on II. 3. 23 p. 612, on II, 3. 27 p. 620 and III, 4. 31 p. 967 it appears that there was another person called Bbāṣyakārāntara, who was earlier than Sabara From Tantravārtika on III. 4. 12 (p. 909) and Tup-tikā on VI. 5. 10 (p. 1462) it seems that Kumārila sometimes applies the word vṛttikāra to Sabara also.

1198

History of Dharmasastra | Sec. VII, Ch. XXVIII

Bhartmilia–On verse 10 of the ślokavārtika, the N. R says that the former refers to Bbart;mitra who so interpreted the Mimāṁsā as to make it atheistic. According to Umbeka (in Tātparyaṭikā p. 3) his work was called Tattvasuddhi; between 400-600 A, D.

Kumarilabhatta - About 650-700 A. D. 1952

Prabhākara – author of Br̥hati on Sabara’s bhāsya-between 675-725 A. D.

Mandana– Disciple of Kumārila or a younger contempor ary, wrote on both P. M. and Vedānta; in Vidhiviveka p. 109 he quotes the Bṛhati (vide Pro. of 3rd O. Conf. p 479); his other works are Bhāvanāviveka, Vibhramaviveka and Mimārgā. nukramapika; between 680-720 A. D. Vide ABORI vol. 18 pp. 121-157 (by Prof. Kuppuswami Sastri), J. I. H. vol. XV pp. 320-329.

Umbeka - pupil of Kumārila and commentator of Sloka vārtika and of Mandana’s Bhāvanāviveka; generally identified with dramatist Bhavabhūti between 700-750 A. D.

Salikanātha - pupil of Prabhākara and author of the com mentary Rjuvimala on Prabhākara’s Br̥hati and of an independ ent work ‘Prakaraṇa-pañoikā’. It is noteworthy that in Rjupimalā on Bṭhati (p. 91) he quotes a verse from Ślokavārtika (Vākyādhikaraña verses 43-44) and refers to Kumārila with great respect as ‘Yadābur-Vārtikakāra-miśrāḥ’; 710-770 A. D.

Sureśvara–(called Viśvarūpa before he became a sannyāsin) disciple of Saṅkarācārya. Between 800-840 A. D.

1952. One circumstance wbich fixes the earliest limit of Kumārila’s time is furnished by the Kāsikā (com. on Aṣtādbyāyi). In the lengthy pūrvapakṣa against Grammar contained in the Tantravārtika on P. M. S. I. 3. 24 (from p, 254 onwards), on p. 260 an objection is raised that Pāṇini himself violates bis own roles laid down in ’tsjakābhyām kartari’ (Pān. II. 2. 15) in the sūtras “Janikartuh praksti” (Pān, I. 4,30) and ’tatprayojako betuśca’ (Pāo. I. 4, 55), The Kāśikā of Jayāditya and Vāmana defends the sūtra ’tatprayojako hetusca’ in the words ‘Ay 99157: autora, fauterito GATH:(p. 91 of Benares ed.). The refuafit in grapatan op p. 260 does not accept this explanation of the Kāsikā in the words; gt fāquaa: Anya सिद्धिः। कुतः। येषामनुगमो नास्ति ते सिध्ये युनिपातनैः। अन्यथानुगतानां तु प्रयोग बाधते स्मृतिः। स्मृत्याचारविरोधे हि स्मृतिरेव बलीयसी। प्रत्यक्षप्रतिषेधाच जनिकर्माद्यसाधुता। From I-tsing’s remarks it appears that Jayāditya died in or about 661 A. D. Therefore the Tantravārtika in which fault is found with Kāsikā’s explanation most be later than about 650 A, D,Probable dates of prominant writers on PM

1199

Vacaspati-misra — wrote famous works on all śāstras; author of Nyāyakanikā on Mandana’s Vidhiviveka and Bhāmati on Śhaṅkarabhāsya; between 820–900 A, D.

Pārthasārathimiśra-author of Śāstradīpikā (pub. by Nirn. Press 1915), Nyāyaratnākara (com, on ślokavārtika), Tantraratna (com, on Tupṭīkā) and Nyāyaratnamālā (pub. in G. O. S. with com. Nāyakaratna of Rāmānujicārya); between 900-1100 A. D.

Authors later than Pārthasārathi are placed below in one paragraph.

Sucaritamiśra – author of com, called Kāśikā on the śloka vārtika (a part published in the T. S. S.); Bhavanātha (or Bhavadeva ), author of the Nayaviveka, pub, ia Madras Uni. Sanskrit series, with the com. Vivekatattva of Ravideva (on Tarkapāda, 1937), between 1050-1150 A. D ; Someśvara-gon of Madhava, author of the Nyāyasudbā or Rāṇaka ( a voluminous commentary on the Tantravārtika), pub, in Chowkhamba 8. 8. at Benares, 1909, about 1200 A. D; Murārimiśra — who is supposed to have founded a third school of Mīmāmsā (Murāres tṛtiyah panthāb), author of Tripādīnītinayana (part pub, in J. O. R. Madras, vol. II pp. 270-273 and vol V. pp. 1-5) and Angatvanirukti, Ānan, ed. pp. 1141-1190), between 1150-1220 (acc. to Intro. to Tattavabindu); Mādhavācārya, author of Jaiminiya-nyāyamālāvistāra (pub. by Anan. Press); vide H. of Dh. Vol. I. pp. 374-381), between 1297–1386; Appayy& diksita, author of Vidhirasāyana (pub, at Benares ), is deemed to have written 100 or 108 works on different śāstras, said to have flourished between 1520-1593 A.D., another view being that he flourished between 1554-1626 A. D.; Laugākṣibhāskara, author of Arthasangraha (text with translation, pub. by Dr. Thibaut in 1882 and by several others ); Śhaṅkarabhatta, author of Mimāṁsā-bālaprakāśa (Benares ), between 1550–1620 A. D.; Apadeva, son of Anantadeva, author of Mināmsā-nyāyaprakāśa (pub. by B. O. R. I. Poona, with a lucid commentary by M. M. Vasudevagastri Abhyankar, 1937); there ard several other editions of this work, one of which edited by Prof. Edgerton with transliterated text, translation and notes in Harvard O. Series is very useful; betwoen 1610-1680 A. D.

Khandadova, author of Bhattakaustubha with Bhattadipikā (published in Mysore Govt. Oriental series), and Bhatta rahasya. About 1600-1665 A. D.

View being that

1554–1626 A. D.

author of Arthasapos

1200

History of Dharmaśāstru | Sec. VII, Ch. XXVIII

Gāgābhatta or Visvesvarabhatta, son of Dinakarabhatta, author of Bhattacintāmaṇi (part published at Benares); between 1621-1690 A. D. . Rāmānujācārya, author of Tantrarahasya (G. O. 8.), belonging to the Prabhakara school and of Nayakaratna (com, on Nyāyaratnamālā of Parthasārathi, G. O, 8., 1956 ); about 1500-1575 A. D.

Mimāmsākośa (in Sanskrit) - An encyclopaedic and most learned work on Pārvamimānisā - prepared by Swami Kovala nanda Sarasvati, published by the Prājñapāthaśālāmandala at Wai in the Satara District, Bombay State; four parts have been published so far, covering over 2400 pagos and four more are to be published. The press copy of the whole is, it is understood, ready. Unfortunately the great Swami entered Brāhmi state five years ago.

Some of the works written in English on the P. M. S., apart from short papers and the translation of the Sābarabhāsya (3 vol. in G. O. S.), the Tantravārtika and the Slokavārtika of Kumārila (Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta, 1900) by M. M. Dr. Ganganath Jha, may be noted here for those who desire to make further studies in P. M. S. The following works and papers are also useful.

Max Mūller’s ‘Six systems of Indian Philosophy’ in collected works (ed. of 1899), pp. 197-214; The Prābhākara school of Pūrvamlmāṁsā by M. M. Ganganath Jha (1911); Karmamimāṁsā by A. B. Keith (1921); ‘Indian Philosophy by Prof. Das-Gupta, vol. I. pp 367-405 (Cambridge, 1922); “A Brief Sketch of the Pūrvamimāṁsā system’ by the present author in A. B. O. R. I. vol. VI pp. 1-40 (1925); “Outlines of Indian Philosophy’ by Prof. M. Hiriyanna, pp. 298–325 ( Allen and Unwin, London, 1932); Introduction on a short History of the Pūrva-mlmāmsā-śāstra’ to the edition of the Tattvabindu of Vācaspatimiśra by Pandit V. A. Ramaswami Sastri (Annamalai University 8. Series, 1936); “Indian Philo sophy’ by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, vol. II, pp 374-429 (1941 ); Introduction (pp. III-LI) to the edition of the Tātparyaṭikā of Umboka on ślokavārtika by Prof. C. Kunhan Raja (Madras Un. 1940); ‘Pūrvamimāmsā in its sources’ by M. M. Ganganath Jha (Benares Hindu University, 1949) with a critical Biblio graphy (pp. 5-81 ) by Dr, Umesha Mishra; Citations in Sabara bhāsya’ by Dr. D. V. Garge (Poona, 1952), a painstaking work

Probable dates of prominent writers on PM

1201

in which the learned writer has been able to identify many of the quotations in Sabara’s bhāṣya that had oluded such a deep scholar as M. M. Ganganath Jha, though even Dr. Garge has not been able to identify a large number; Introduction to the Tantrarahasya of Rāmānujācārya by Pandit K, S, Rāmaswami Sastri (G. O. 8. 1956); Mimāṇsā — the Vākyaśāstra of Ancient India, by Prof. G. V. Devasthali (Book-sellers’ Publishing Com pany, Girgaon Back Road, 1959); Mimāṁsā Jurisprudence by Shri Nataraja Aiyyar, Allahabad (Jha Research Institute).

H, D, 151