Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93: Section VII

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93

Language
English

Contents

Section VII

v7.c93.1

MĪMĀṀSĀ AND DHARMAŚĀSTRA

v7.c93.2

The Yājñavalkya-smṛti provides that there are fourteen sources of vidyās (knowledge) and of Dharma,¹⁸⁶⁸ viz. Purāṇa, Nyāya, Mīmāṁsā, Dharmaśāstra, Aṅgas (six) and the Vedas (four). A similar verse is quoted by some as Manu's, but it is not found in the extant Manusmṛti. It is therefore necessary to consider the origin and meaning of the word Mīmāṁsā, to set out the principal doctrines of that Śāstra, to mention the important rules of interpretation and the maxims of the Mīmāṁsā in their application to topics of Dharmaśāstra and to refer to some of the important works of that Śāstra together with their approximate dates.

v7.c93.3

¹⁸⁶⁸ पुराणन्यायमीमांसा ... च चतुर्दश॥ या. I. 3, quoted in n 1337 above. The बृहद्योगियाज्ञवल्क्य reads 'पुराणतर्कमीमांसा ... चतुर्दश' (12.3). अपरार्क p. 6 quotes from विष्णुपुराण the verse 'अङ्गानि वेदाश्चत्वारो मीमांसा न्यायविस्तरः। पुराणं धर्मशास्त्रं च विद्या ह्येताश्चतुर्दश॥' It is विष्णुपु III 6. 27, वायु 61 78 This is quoted as Manu's by Prof. T. R. Chintamani in JOR, Madras, vol. XI. supplement p. 1 It occurs in भविष्य (ब्राह्मपर्व 2 6) also Vide H. of Dh. vol. I. p. 112 note 198 where औशनसधर्मशास्त्र is quoted for 14 विद्याs and II of Dh. vol III p. 10 note 17 (for the four additional vidyās bringing the total up to 18) Vide a recent publication of Dr G S. Ghurye (1957, Bombay) on Vidyās (or Indian contribution to Sociology of knowledge) for detailed treatment. Even before the days of Kālidāsa the Vidyās had been 14 as indicated by Raghuvaṁśa V 21 (वित्तस्य विद्यापरिसंख्यया मे कोटीश्चतस्रो दश चाहरेति॥)

v7.c93.4

The word mīmāṁsā has a great antiquity behind it. The Tai. S. VII. 5. 7. 1¹⁸⁶⁹ says 'the expounders of Brahma (Veda) discuss (the question) whether a day should be omitted or not'. Here the verbal form 'mīmāṁsante' is employed in the sense of discussing or investigating a doubtful point and arriving at a decision thereon. In another passage of the Tai. S. the same form and another ‘mīmāṁseran’ are used in the same sense. In several other places the Tai. S. raises points for discussion with the words ‘the brahmavādins discuss’ but without employing the word mīmāṁsante 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 Kāṭhaka Saṁhitā¹⁸⁷⁰ puts forward a doubtful point for investigation without the words ‘Brahmavādins say’, but with the word ‘mīmāṁsante’. The Atharvaveda¹⁸⁷¹ states ‘men separately discussing many times noted on the earth her actions’. In another place it employs the words *mīmāṁsita* and *mīmāṁsamāna*. The Śāṅkhāyana¹⁸⁷² 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 mīmāṁsā and the Śatapatha also in the Kāṇva recension does so (*vide* S. B. E. vol. 26 note 1). In the Chāndogyopaniṣad¹⁸⁷³ 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?’. In the Tai. Up. occur the words ‘this is the investigation into (the nature of) Bliss (Brahma)’. In both these passages the word mīmāṁsā is used in the sense of ‘consideration’ (*vicāranā*) of high philosophical topics.’

v7.c93.5

¹⁸⁶⁹ उत्सृज्यां 3 नोत्सृज्या 3 मिति मीमांसन्ते ब्रह्मवादिनस्तद्वाहुत्सृज्यमेवेति ...। तै सं VII. 5. 7 1; व्यावृत्ते देवयजने याजयेद्व्र्ष्यात्पक्ताम य पात्रे वा तल्पे वा मीमांसेरन् ... नैनं पात्रे न तल्पे मीमासन्ते। तै. सं VI 2. 6. 4-5 The last sentence means 'they do not have any doubt about his being fit for dining with them or fit for relation with him by marriage'.

v7.c93.6

¹⁸⁷⁰ आग्नेयो३१ ३ न॑धि॒या ३ इति मीमासन्ते श्वेन्न॒माधस्य॑मानेना ३ इति । काठकसं. VIII 12

v7.c93.7

¹⁸⁷¹ पश्यन्त्वस्याश्चरितं पृथिव्या पृथङ्नरो बहुधा मीमांसमानाः। अथर्व IX. 1. 3, स य एव विद्वांसं द्विपक्षनीयान्न द्विपतोऽन्नमश्नीयान्न मीमांसितस्य न मीमांसमानस्य । अथर्व IX. 6 (2). 24.

v7.c93.8

¹⁸⁷² उदिते होतव्या ३ महुदित इति मीमांसन्ते । शां ब्रा II. 8. Compare समु II. 15: सैषा मीमांसाऽग्निहोत्र एव सम्पन्ना । तै ब्रा III 10 9.

v7.c93.9

¹⁸⁷³ प्राचीनशाल औपमन्यव.... ते हैते महाशाला महाश्रोत्रियाः समेत्य मीमांसां चक्रुः को न आत्मा किं ब्रह्मेति । छा V. 11. 1; सैषानन्दस्य मीमांसा भवति । तै उप. II. 8

v7.c93.10

Pāṇini provides¹⁸⁷⁴ for the formation of seven roots with *san* affix (Desiderative), one of which is ‘mīmāṁsate’ from 'mān' and the Kāśikā adds that it means 'desire to know i. e. investigation and final conclusion', having in view probably the sūtras 'Athāto dharma-jijñāsā' and 'Athāto brahma-jijñāsā'.

v7.c93.11

¹⁸⁷⁴ गुप्तिज्किद्भ्यः सन् । मान्-बध-दान्-शान्भ्यो दीर्घश्चाभ्यासस्य । पा. III. 1. 5–6 ; the काशिका explains 'मान पूजायाम् । ... एतेभ्यो धातुभ्यो सन् प्रत्ययो भवति। अभ्यासस्य चेकारस्य दीर्घदिशो भवति । मीमांसते ... मानेर्जिज्ञासायाम् ।' The bhāṣya of Śaṅkarācārya on V. S I. 1 winds up the discussion with the words तस्माद् ब्रह्मजिज्ञासोपन्यासमुखेन वेदान्तवाक्यमीमांसा तदविरोधिकोपकरणा निःश्रेयसप्रयोजना प्रस्तूयते ।' on which the भामती remarks ‘नाङ्क मानेरित्यस्माद्वा मान पूजायाम्-इत्यस्माद्धातो., मान-बध इत्यादिनानिच्छार्थे सनि व्युत्पादितस्य मीमांसाशब्दस्य पूजितविचारवचनत्वात् &c.

v7.c93.12

The foregoing brief discussion shows that long before the Upaniṣads the word 'mīmāṁsā' had come to mean 'investigation into a topic of discussion and coming to a conclusion thereon'. The same word acquired a restricted sense (as in the verse of Yāj. quoted above) viz. investigation into Dharma and arriving at conclusions on doubtful matters by interpretation and reasoning.

v7.c93.13

Some of the Dharmasūtras disclose familiarity with purely Mīmāṁsā terms and principles. For example, Gaut. states¹⁸⁷⁵ that an option is allowed only when there is a conflict between two texts of equal authority. The Āpastamba Dharmasūtra is the only Dharmasūtra that contains numerous Mīmāṁsā terms and doctrines. It says 'a positive Vedic text has more force than an usage which merely leads to an 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 smṛti text) the latter is to be discarded but if there be no conflict an inference may be drawn (that the smṛti text is based on some Śruti)'. Āp says '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 Āp. 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) śāstra', which is similar to Jaimini's rule. For reasons of space other examples of close agreement between Āp. Dh. S.¹⁸⁷⁷ and Jaimini are simply referred to in the note below and not explained at length. These examples show that in Āpastamba's day Mīmāṁsā doctrines had been far advanced and since he employs the words 'Nyāyavit-samaya' (the *siddhānta* or doctrine of those who know Nyāya) and 'Nyāyavidaḥ', it follows that he is referring to some work on Mīmāṁsā or some author who composed a mīmāṁsā-sūtra. The correspondence in ideas and words between Āp. and the Pūrvamīmāṁsāsūtra is so close that one is tempted to argue that Āp. knew either the extant mīmāṁsāsūtra 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 interpolations. They have all been commented upon by Haradatta.

v7.c93.14

¹⁸⁷⁵ तुल्यबल्योर्विकल्पः। गौ. I. 5, compare जै XII. 3. 10 एकार्थास्तु -विकल्पेरन् समुच्चये ह्यवृत्तिः स्यात्प्रधानस्य, शबर explains. ये त्वेकार्थाः एककार्यास्ते विकल्पेरन् यथा व्रीहियवौ; vide शबर 'तुल्यार्थयोर्हि तुल्यविद्ययोर्विकल्पो भवति न नानार्थयोः।' on जै X 6.33; compare मनु II 14 'श्रुतिद्वैधं तु यत्र स्यात्तत्र धर्मावुभौ स्मृतौ।'

v7.c93.15

¹⁸⁷⁶ श्रुतिर्हि बलीयस्यानुमानिकादाचारात्। आप. ध I. 1. 4. 8; compare 'विरोधे त्वनपेक्षं स्यादसति ह्यनुमानम्' जै. I. 3. 3, विद्यां प्रत्यनध्यायः श्रूयते न कर्मयोगे मन्त्राणाम्। आप ध. I 4 12 9, compare जै XII 3 19 विद्यां प्रति विधानाह्ला सर्वे-कालं प्रयोगः स्यात्कर्मार्थत्वात् प्रयोगस्य।', यच्च तु प्रीत्युपलब्धितः प्रवृत्तिर्न तत्र शास्त्रमस्ति। आप. ध I. 4 12 11, compare जै. IV. 1. 2 'यस्मिन् प्रीतिः पुरुषस्य तस्य लिप्तार्थ-लक्षणाऽविभक्तत्वात्।'

v7.c93.16

¹⁸⁷⁷ अङ्गानां तु प्रधानैरव्यपदेश इति न्यायवित्समय.। आप. ध II 4. 8. 13, compare जैमिनि I. 3. 11-14 (कल्पसूत्राधिकरण); अथापि नित्यानुवादमविधिमाहुरार्याः- (*Continued from last page*) विद्० &c.। आप ध II 6. 14, 13, compare जै VI 7 30 'अर्थवादो वा विधिशेषत्वात् तस्मात्नित्यानुवादः स्यात्।', तस्यां क्रयशब्दः स्तुतिमात्रम्। धर्माद्दि सम्बन्धः। आप. ध. II. 6. 13. 11, compare जै VI. 1. 15 क्रयस्य धर्ममात्रत्वम्।

v7.c93.17

Some Śrautasūtras 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.¹⁸⁷⁸

v7.c93.18

¹⁸⁷⁸ It may be noted that P. M S writers are often called 'Nyāyavidaḥ' by Śaṅkara (on V. S III 4 22), by Viśvarūpa and others Bhāskara in his commentary on Brahmasūtra (I. 1 1. p. 5, Chowkhamba series) states ' यच्छब्द आह तदस्माकं प्रमाणमिति हि न्यायविदः These are the words of Śabara in his bhāṣya on P. M S III 2 36. On Yāj. I. 58 the Bālakrīḍā of Viśvarūpa says ' 'Tathā ca naiyāyikāḥ, 'na hı vacanasyātibhārostītyāhuḥ' '' These are the words of Śabara on Jaimini III. 2.3 viz. 'Kimiva vacanam na kuryāt nāstı vacanasyātibhāraḥ' So here Śabara is called Naiyāyika On Yāj I. 53 the Bālakrīḍā says 'Nyāyavidaśca Yājñıkāḥ। api vā sarvadharmaḥ syāt tannyāyatvād vidhānasya'. This last is Jai. I 3. 16 So here Jaimini is called Nyāyavid and Yājñıka. Similarly, on Yāj. I. 87 the Bālakrīḍa quotes Jai. VI. 8. 17 as the words of 'Nyāyavido yājñıkāh'. The J. N. M. V says *nyāyas* are the *adhikaraṇas*, deciding points of Dharma and expounded by Jaimini 'जैमिनिप्रोक्तानि धर्मनिर्णायकान्यधिकरणानि न्यायाः.' The writers of Śrautasūtras are called merely Yājñikas by Bālakrīda on Yāj. I. 38 'Tathā ca yājñıkāḥ vyavahāryā bhavanti ıtyāhuh'. This quotation is from Kātyāyana Śrautasūtra 22. 4. 27–28. Besides, the sūtra 'Prājaścittavidhānācca,' is the same in both Kāt. Ś I. 2. 19 and P. M. S. VI. 3. 7 and Kāt. Ś 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 in P.M S. III. 5. 36–39, though they hold opposite views. The P. M. S. (IV. 4. 19–21) holds that the Pıṇḍapitṛyajña is not an *anga* of the rites on darśa (i. e amāvāsyā), but an independent rite, while the Kāt. Śr. (IV. 1. 28–30) holds that it is an *anga*. In the discussion on the meaning of the word Vaiśvānara occurring in Rg. I. 98. 1. and I. 59. 6 the Nirukta (VII 21-23) cites the views of 'ācāryāḥ', of the ancient Yājñikas (who held that Vaiśvānara means the sun in the sky) and of 'Śākapūṇi' (who holds that it means the terrestrial Agni) The Nirukta mentions the views of Yājñikas in V. 11, VII 4 (where Yājñikas differ from the Nairuktas), in IX. 29 where the Nairuktas hold that Anumati and Rākā are wives of the gods while the Yājñikas held that these were the names of Paurṇamāsī), in XI. 31 (where a similar conflict between the views of the two interpreters of Sinīvālī and Kuhū is mentioned) and XI 42-43 (where also the views of Yājñikas and Nairuktas are mentioned).

v7.c93.19

Only a few examples may be cited here; compare Kāt. I. 1. 9-10 (about rathakāra) with Jai VI. 1. 44; Kāt I. 1. 12-14 with Jai. VI 1. 51 and VI. 8. 20-22, Kāt. I 1. 18-20 with Jai. XII. 2. 1-4; Kāt. I. 2. 18-20 with Jai VI. 3. 2-7 (about *nitya-karma* yielding full reward, even though some *aṅga* could not be performed), also Kāt. I 3. 1-3 with Jai. I. 1. 35-40; Kāt. I. 3. 28-30 with Jai. VI. 6. 3. Sometimes, the Kāt. Ś. takes a view opposite to that of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā but the words are often almost the same.

v7.c93.20

The Vārtikas of Kātyāyana on Pāṇini and the Mahābhāṣya show that Mīmāṁsā technical terms and doctrines had been elaborated long before them. For example, the Vārtikas employ the technical Mīmāṁsā terms '*prasajyapratisedha*' (Vārtika 7 on Pāṇini I. 1. 44, Vārtika 5 on I. 2. 1, Vārtika 2. on VII. 3. 85), *paryudāsa* (Vārtika 3 on I. 1. 27), the word '*Śāstrātidośa*' (in Vārtika on VII. 1. 96), the distinction between '*niyama*' and '*vidhi*' (in Vārtika 1 and 2 on III. 3. 163), the word '*prakaraṇa*' (vārtika 4 on VI. 2. 143). Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya is full of Pūrvamīmāṁsā matters. The word '*Mīmāṁsaka*' occurs in bhāṣya 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 eaten.¹⁸⁷⁹ But Patañjali does not employ the word Parisaṅkhyā of which the above (five) is an example, according to mīmāṁsā works. Jaimini employs the word Parisankhyā in VII. 3. 22. The Mahābhāṣya on IV. 1. 14 (vārtika 5) and on IV. 1. 93 (vārtika 9) gives valuable information viz. a brāhmaṇa woman is called 'Kāśakṛtsnā' if she studies the Mīmāṁsā expounded by Kāśakṛtsni.¹⁸⁸⁰ This establishes that in Patañjali's time a mīmāṁsā work composed by Kāśakṛtsni was in existence and women were found studying it. It is not certain what the Kāśakṛtsni-mīmāṁsā contained i. e. whether it was like the Pūrvamīmāṁsā of Jaimini or it was like the Uttaramīmāṁsā (Vedāntasūtra) or dealt with both mīmāṁsā and vedānta, which latter is not unlikely. The V. S. mentions the opinion of a teacher Kāśakṛtsna (in I. 4. 22), which Śaṅkarācārya regards as the final conclusion supported by the real import of Śruti. The son of Kāśakṛtsna might have been called Kāśakṛtsni (Pāṇini IV. 1. 95). The Vārtikas and Patañjali are full of the discussion of important matters on which the Mīmāṁsā has its own doctrines. In the Vārtikas 35 to 59 on Pāṇini I. 2. 64 (Sarūpānām-ekaśeṣa ekavibhaktau) there is a lengthy dicsussion on the question of the import of words, viz. whether it is *ākṛti* or *vyakti*. It is said in Vārtika 35 that, according to Vājapyāyana, ākṛti is the import of a word, while, according to Vyāḍi (in Vārtika 45 'dravyābhidhānaṁ Vyāḍiḥ), *dravya* (or *vyakti*) is the import of a word (*pada*). The Mahābhāṣya notes that Pāṇini wrote some sūtras (such as I. 2. 58 'Jātyākhyāyām' &c) in which he accepted *jāti* as the import of words, while in other sūtras (such as I. 3. 64 'sarūpānām' &c) he accepted ‘dravya’ as the import of words.¹⁸⁸¹ It is to be noted that, according to Jaimini (I. 3 33 ‘ākṛtistu kriyārthatvāt), ākṛti is the import of words. On vārtika 3 on Pāṇ. IV. 1. 92 (Sāmānyacodanāstu viśeṣeṣu) Patañjali says that the vidhis declared with reference to certain things and objects in general really apply to individuals and he gives purely mīmāṁsā examples in this connection as set out in the note. The Vārtikakāra and Patañjali both use the word ‘codanā’¹⁸⁸² in the Pūrva-mīmāṁsā sense and give examples which are familiar to us from Śābarabhāṣya. Among the purposes served by a study of grammar, *ūha* (which is the subject of the 9th chapter of PMS) is one. On Pāṇini I. 4. 3 Patañjali uses the language of Mīmāṁsā ‘apūrva eva vidhirbhaviṣyati na niyamaḥ.’

v7.c93.21

¹⁸⁷⁹ भक्ष्यनियमेनाभक्ष्यप्रतिषेधो गम्यते। पञ्च पञ्चनखा भक्ष्या इत्युक्ते गम्यत एतदतोऽन्येऽभक्ष्या इति। महाभाष्य (ed Kielhorn vol. I. p 5). Compare शबर on जै. X 7. 28 'किं तु परिसंख्यैषा प्रतिषेधः स्यात्। यथा पञ्च पञ्चनखा भक्ष्या इति ज्ञातादीनां पञ्चानां कीर्तेनादन्येषां भक्षणं प्रतिषिध्यत इत्ययमर्थो वाक्येन गम्यते' The five animals are. शल्यक. श्वाविधो गोधा शशः कूर्मश्च पञ्चमः॥ रामायण IV. 17. 39; मनु V 18 adds खङ्ग (rhinoceros) to these five. Vide या I. 177 for five and गौ. ध. सू 17. 27 'पञ्चनखाश्च। शल्यकशशश्वाविद्गोधामद्गकच्छपाः' (अभक्ष्याः).

v7.c93.22

¹⁸⁸⁰ काशकृत्स्निना प्रोक्ता मीमांसा काशकृत्स्नी काशकृत्स्नीमधीते काशकृत्स्ना ब्राह्मणी। महाभाष्य on पा IV 1 14. If काशकृत्स्नि's मीमांसा dealt with पूर्वमीमांसा matters it is surprising that the extant पूर्वमीमांसासूत्र makes no reference to काशकृत्स्नि, when it names, besides जैमिनि, nine predecessors viz आत्रेय, आलेखन (VI. 5. 17), आश्मरथ्य (VI. 5. 16), ऐतिशायन, कामुकायन, कार्ष्णाजिनि, बादरायण, बादरि and लाबुकायन Dr. Umesha Mishra omits by oversight आश्मरथ्य from the list of the predecessors of जैमिनि in his 'critical bibliography of mīmāṁsā' added at the end of M. M. Jha's 'Pūrvamīmāṁsā in its sources' काशकृत्स्नि's मीमांसा, being mentioned by पतञ्जलि, must be placed not later than 200 B C. If काशकृत्स्नि wrote on पूर्वमीमांसा as is most likely, one would naturally expect that if the extant पूर्वमीमांसासूत्र was composed after 200 B. C. and about 200 A. D. (as both Jacobi and Keith propose) काशकृत्स्नि should have been mentioned by the पू मी सू. But if जैमिनि was earlier than काशकृत्स्नि or was a contemporary of the latter, then it would be natural if the पू मी सू does not mention him. Therefore, though an argument from mere silence is not very strong, it is likely that the present P. M. S. was composed at least before 200 B. C.

v7.c93.23

¹⁸⁸¹ ‘किं पुनराकृतिः पदार्थ आहोस्विव्द् द्रव्यम्। उभयमित्याह । कथ ज्ञायते । उभयथा ह्याचार्येण सूत्राणि पठितानि। आकृतिं पदार्थे मत्वा जात्याख्या ... तरस्याम् इत्युच्यते। द्रव्य पदार्थ मत्वा सरूपाणाम्–इत्येकशेष आरभ्यते। महाभाष्य just before ‘सिद्धे शब्दार्थसम्बन्धे’ vol I. p 6 Kielhorn's ed., आकृतौ शास्त्राणि प्रवर्तन्ते। ... आकृतिस्तु प्रत्येकं परिसमाप्यते। महाभाष्य vol II p. 392 (Kielhorn).

v7.c93.24

¹⁸⁸² चोदनाया 'चैकस्योपाधिवृत्तेः। वार्तिक 44 on पा. I. 2 64; on which the महाभाष्य remarks ‘चोदनायां चैकस्योपाधिवृत्तेर्मन्यामह आकृतिरभिधीयत इति। आग्नेयमष्टाकपाल निर्वपेत्। चोदनासु च तस्यारम्भात्।' वार्तिक 47 on I. 2 64, on which the महाभाष्य comments ‘चोदनासु च तस्यारम्भान्मन्यामहे द्रव्यमभिधीयत इति। गौरनुबन्ध्योऽजोऽग्नीषोमीय इति।'; कानि पुनः शब्दानुशासनस्य प्रयोजनानि। रक्षोहागमलघ्वसन्देहाः प्रयोजनम्। p. 1. of Kielhorn's edition, सामान्यचोदनास्तु विशेषेऽवतिष्ठन्ते। तद्यथा। गौरनुबन्ध्योऽजोऽग्नीषोमीय इत्याकृतौ चोदिताया द्रव्य आरम्भणालम्भनमोक्षणविशसनादीनि क्रियन्ते। पतञ्जलि on वार्तिक 3 on पा IV. 1 92

v7.c93.25

It appears that the Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa was very much neglected from early times. There is a conflict of views about its authorship The Nyāyapariśuddhi of Veṅkaṭanātha (I. H. Q. vol. IX. at p. 299) states that Kāśakṛtsna was the author of the Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa. It appears from Śabara's bhāṣya that¹⁸⁸³ that Kāṇḍa existed in his day and was looked upon by him as Jaimini's work. Śaṅkarācārya in his bhāṣya on V. S. III. 3. 43 (pradānavadeva tad-uktam) mentions the Saṅkarṣa, quotes a sūtra therefrom, holds that it was known to the Vedāntasūtra and appears to convey that it was a work of Jaimini. Rāmānuja also appears to hold that Jaimini was the author of 16 chapters (comprising the twelve called Pūrvamīmāṁsā and the four forming the Saṅkarṣa). The Kalpataruparimala of Appayyadikṣita on V. S. III. 3. 43, while conceding that the Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa was undertaken for discussion about *devatās*, insists that it is a pariśiṣṭa (supplement) of the P. M. S. of twelve chapters consisting as it does 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 sūtra is ‘anuyajatīti anuvasaṭkāraś-codyate’. Since the Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa has had hardly any influence on Dharmaśāstra works no further reference need be made to it in this work.¹⁸⁸⁴

v7.c93.26

¹⁸⁸³ विधिनिगमभेदः प्रकृतौ कृतः। स्विष्टकृद्विकारश्च वनस्पतिति सङ्कर्षे वक्ष्यते। शबर on X. 4 32 (p 1934), यथा पत्नी तुल्यवच्छूयते इति सङ्कर्षे वक्ष्यति। शबर on जै XII 2. 11 (p 2242); ‘एव त्तस्वाभेदेप्याधेयांशापृथक्त्वादाध्यानपृथक्त्वमित्यर्थः। तदुक्तं 'नाना वा देवता पृथग्ज्ञानात्’ इति। शङ्कर on वे सू III 3 43. Vide Siddha-Bhāratī part II pp. 102–105 for some sūtras from Saṅkarṣa-kāṇḍa and Intro. to Tattvabindu pp. 12-13.

v7.c93.27

¹⁸⁸⁴ Vide a paper by Pandit V. A. Ramaswami Shastri in I. H Q. *vol.* IX pp. 290-299 on Saṅkarṣa as a supplement to the P. M. S.

v7.c93.28

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

v7.c93.29

¹⁸⁸⁵ प्रातिस्विकाने कवाक्यार्थगततत्तदज्ञानसंशयविपर्ययव्युदासेन पारमार्थिकार्थसतत्त्वस्वरूपनिर्णयार्थं समस्तैरप्येतैर्विद्यास्थानैरप्यर्थ्यमानत्वात्तेभ्योऽपि मीमांसाख्यविद्यास्थानं गरीयस्तरम् । तथा ह्याहुः। चतुर्दशसु विद्यासु मीमांसैव गरीयसी । जैमिनीयन्यायसंग्रह of कपिष्ठल-परमेश्वर part. I p 2 (T. S. S.).

v7.c93.30

In some works like the bhāṣya of Rāmānuja on V. S. and the Prapañcahṛdaya¹⁸⁸⁶ the Mīmāṁsāśāstra is stated to be as one whole containing twenty adhyāyas (chapters) and we are told that there was a (bhāṣya) commentary called Kṛtakoṭi on the whole of it by Bodhāyana, that later on a concise commentary was composed by Upavarṣa, that Devasvāmin wrote a commentary on 16 chapters and Bhavadāsa also composed a commentary on Jaimini, but that Śabara wrote a bhāṣya only on the first 12 chapters 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 subjects, one of which is specified as the mīmāṁsā 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 Jaiminī, 4 chapters called Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa and 4 chapters constituting the Vedāntasūtra. The twelve chapters often called Pūrvamīmāṁsā make an extensive work containing 915 or about one thousand adhikaraṇas (according to different writers) and about 2700 sūtras, dealing with numerous topics and laying down important rules of vedic interpretation. Yāj. (in I. 3) means by Mīmāṁsā probably the work of Jaimini in 12 chapters. Many writers such as Mādhavācārya ¹⁸⁸⁷ speak of two Mīmāṁsās, Pūrva and Uttara, respectively comprising the 12 chapters ascribed to Jaimini and the four chapters forming the Vedāntasūtra. Śaṅkarācārya refers to the extant Pūrvamīmāṁsā as Dvādaśalakṣaṇī in his bhāṣya on Vedāntasūtra III. 3. 26, as 'Prathamatantra' in bhāṣya on V. S. III. 3. 25, III. 3. 53 and III. 4. 27, as Prathama-kāṇḍa in bhāṣya on V. S. III. 3. 1, III. 3. 33, III. 3. 44, III. 3. 50, as Pramāṇalakṣaṇa in bhāṣya on V. S. III. 4. 42. On V. S. III. 3. 53 he speaks of the first pāda of the P. M S. as 'Śāstrapramukha eva prathame pāde' and thereby conveys that he regards that the PMS and VS form one entire śāstra.

v7.c93.31

¹⁸⁸⁶ तत्र साङ्गोपाङ्गस्य वेदस्य पूर्वोत्तरकाण्डसंभिन्नस्याशेषवाक्यार्थविचारपरायणं मीमांसाशास्त्रम् । तदिदं विंशत्यध्यायनिबद्धम् । तत्र षोडशाध्यायनिबद्धं पूर्वमीमांसाशास्त्रं पूर्वकाण्डस्य धर्मविचारपरायणं जैमिनिकृतम् । तदन्यदध्यायचतुष्कमत्तरमीमांसाशास्त्रमुत्तरकाण्डस्य ब्रह्मविचारपरायणं व्यासकृतम् । तस्य विंशत्यध्यायनिबद्धस्य मीमांसाशास्त्रस्य कृतकोटिनामधेयं भाष्यं बोधायनेन कृतम् । तद्ग्रन्थबाहुल्यभयादुपेक्ष्य किंचित्संक्षिप्तमुपवर्षेण कृतम् । तदपि मन्दमतीन्प्रति दुष्प्रतिपादं विस्तीर्णत्वादित्युपेक्ष्य षोडशलक्षणपूर्वमीमांसाशास्त्रस्य देवस्वामिनातिसंक्षिप्तं कृतम्। भवदासेनापि कृतं जैमिनीयभाष्यम् । प्रपञ्चहृदय (T S S. pp 38-39; तदाह वृत्तिकारः। वृत्तात्कर्माधिगमादनन्तरं ब्रह्मविविदिषेति। वक्ष्यति च कर्मब्रह्ममीमांसयोरैकशास्त्र्यं संहितमेतच्छारीरकं जैमिनीयेन षोडशलक्षणेनेति शास्त्रैकत्वसिद्धिः। श्रीभाष्य p 2 (Bom. S. S.) Vide ABORI vol. X. pp 153-54 for the author's paper on Bhavadāsa as a predecessor of शबर. भवदास is named in श्लोकवार्तिक (प्रतिज्ञासूत्र verse 63) and the न्यायरत्नाकर on p. 133 states that भवदास split पू. मी सू. I 1.4 into two. Vide Intro. to तत्त्वबिन्दु pp 19-20 for भवदास.

v7.c93.32

¹⁸⁸⁷ ये पूर्वोत्तरमीमांसे ते व्याख्यायातिसंग्रहात् । कृपालुर्माधवाचार्यो वेदार्थं वक्तुमुद्यतः ॥ Intro. verse 4 to the Com. on the ऋग्वेद (Poona ed.). Some mss, read सायणाचार्यो for माधवाचार्यो.

v7.c93.33

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

v7.c93.34.1

There are very difficult and controversial questions about the authorship of the extant Pūrvamīmāṁsāsūtra 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 Vedāntasūtras is only about 1/5th of the number of the P. M. S., the V.S. contains more personal references (i. e. 32) than the P. M S. (i. e. 27). In the 2nd place, we find that the Vedāntasūtras mention Jaimini eleven times and Bādarāyaṇa nine times, while the P. M. S. names Bādarāyaṇa and Jaimini only five times each. The question arises whether Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa were contemporaries and, if not, what the relation between the two was. Scholars are generally agreed that they were not contemporaries. There is a tradition of some antiquity contained in the Sāmavidhānabrāhmaṇa¹⁸⁸⁸ 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 Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana, arranged the one Veda into four and imparted the Ṛgveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda and Atharvaveda respectively to Paila, Vaiśampāyana, Jaimini and Sumantu. In the Mahābhārata Sumantu, Jaimini, Vaiśampāyana, Paila are stated along with Śuka (the son of Vyāsa) to be the pupils of Vyāsa; vide Sabhā 4. 11 and Śāntiparva 328, 26–27 (cr. ed. 314, 23–24, 29) and 350 11–12 (cr. ed 337. 11–12).

v7.c93.34.2

In the tarpaṇa provided for in the Āśvalāyanagṛhyasūtra (III. 4. 4) occurs the very interesting passage 'Sumantu-Jaimini-Vaiśampāyana-Paila-Sūtra-bhāṣya-Bhārata-Mahābhārata-Dharmācāryāḥ.' The above passages make it clear that several centuries before the Christian era Jaimini's was an honoured name and connected with the Sāmaveda Scholars have examined the references to Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa 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 Bādarāyaṇa 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, IX. 2 39, XII. 1. 7. Commonsense requires us to hold that these five references about Jaimini must have been made to the same person. If two different Jaiminis were intended by the P. M. S. (other than its own author) in the five sūtras a clear warning would have been given by the author. As shown below a 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 Śabara does not employ the word ācārya for qualifying Jaimini on VI. 3. 4 as he does in the four other cases and because the view put forward in VI. 3.

v7.c93.34.3

4 appears to be Pūrvapakṣa, while in the four other cases Jaimini's view is the siddhānta view of the Mīmāṁsā-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 Śabara 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. VI. 3. 4 is different from the Jaimini named in four other places. The usages of ācāryas as to employment of qualifying words like 'ācārya' or 'bhagavat' to authors mentioned by them differ. Kumārila applies no epithet like 'ācārya' or 'bhagavān' to Jamini and in one place¹⁸⁸⁹ charges Jaimini with composing sūtras containing not much substance. In the sūtras in which Jaimini is named in the VS (viz. in I. 2. 28, I. 2. 31, I. 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) Śaṅkarācārya adds the qualification 'ācārya' in all except on III. 4. 40, although Jaimini propounds many propositions not acceptable to Bādarāyaṇa the author of V. S. or to Śaṅkara. In III. 4. 40, however,¹⁸⁹⁰ he omits the qualification 'ācārya' as regards both Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa. No one has argued that because the word ācārya does not qualify Bādarāyaṇa in III. 4. 40, the Bādarāyaṇa in that sūtra is different from the Bādarāyaṇa named in other sūtras. In another place (on V. S IV.

v7.c93.34.4

1 17) it may be noted Śaṅkarācārya remarks that both Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa are in agreement that certain acts of the *kāmya* type are of no help in attaining real knowledge of brahma. This shows that according to Śaṅkara, 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 pūrvapakṣa view. In that *adhikaraṇa* the Pūrvapakṣa is stated in the first sūtra¹⁸⁹¹ viz. as to such *nitya* rites as Agnihotra or Darśapūrṇamāsa 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 (aṅgas) therein; the third sūtra only states that smṛti 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 sūtra in which the name of Jaimini occurs. Śabara's bhāṣya on this sutra is extremely meagre (2½ lines in print) and not clear. The Tup-tīkā does not comment separately on each of the sūtras of VI. 3. 1–7,¹⁸⁹² it omits the name of Jaimini in its explanation and its concluding words on this adhikaraṇa 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.

v7.c93.34.5

4 were a pūrvapakṣa sūtra, it is expected that sūtra 5 should contain the word 'tu' or 'api vā' in order to indicate that it refutes the view expressed in sūtra 4. What that sūtra means is that the dropping of some anga in the *nitya* rite does not make that rite a different one from the same *nitya* rite when performed with all angas, since the text about its performance (with all angas or with some angas) is one and the same and the vedic instruction is that all angas have to be done (if possible). Interpreted thus, that sūtra is not a pūrvapaksa 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

v7.c93.35

¹⁸⁸⁸ सोऽयं प्राजापत्यो विधिस्तमिमं प्रजापतिर्बृहस्पतये बृहस्पतिर्नारदाय नारदो विष्वक्सेनाय विष्वक्सेनो व्यासाय पाराशर्याय व्यासः पाराशर्यो जैमिनये जैमिनिः पौष्पिण्ड्याय पौष्पिण्ड्य पाराशर्यायणाय पाराशर्यायणो बादरायणाय बादरायणस्ताण्डि-शाट्यायनिभ्यां ताण्डिशाट्यायनिना बहुभ्य &c.। सामविधानब्रा (at end) The न्या र on श्लोकवा. (प्रतिज्ञासूत्र v. 23) sets out the गुरुपरम्परा of पूर्वमीमांसा as ब्रह्मा-प्रजापति-इन्द्र-आदित्य-वसिष्ठ-पराशर-कृष्णद्वैपायन-जैमिनि. The युक्तिस्नेहमपूरणी p 8 (in Chowkhamba series) gives two similar गुरुक्रमs slightly differing from that of the सामविधानब्रा० and from each other. The गुरुपरम्परा is practically useless up to वसिष्ठ It may be noted that in the सामविधान० Jaimini is said to be the disciple of Vyāsa Pārāśarya while between Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa intervene two other names.

v7.c93.36

¹⁸⁸⁹ 'सन्ति च जैमिनेरेवंप्रकाराण्यनत्यन्तसारभूतानि सूत्राणि।' तन्त्रवार्तिक p 895 (on उपवीतं लिङ्गदर्शनात् सर्वधर्म स्यात्, which is the first of six sūtras after III 4 9 that were omitted by Śabara)

v7.c93.37

¹⁸⁹⁰ The sūtra is 'तद्भूतस्य तु नातद्भावो जैमिनेरपि नियमातद्रूपाभावेभ्यः' वे सू III. 4. 40 on which Śaṅkara remarks. जैमिनेरपीत्यपिशब्देन जैमिनिबादरायणयोरत्र संप्रतिपत्तिं शास्ति प्रतिपत्तिदाढर्याय This means that बादरायण is the author of III 4. 40 (in which बादरायण is not named at all) and therefore of the entire Vedānta-sūtra

v7.c93.38

¹⁸⁹¹ सर्वशक्तौ प्रवृत्तिः स्यात्तथाभूतोपदेशात् । अपि वाप्येकदेशे स्यात्प्रधाने ह्यर्थनिर्वृत्तिर्गुणमात्रमितरत्तदर्थत्वात् । तदकर्मणि च दोषस्तस्मात्ततो विशेषः स्यात्प्रधानेनाभिसम्बन्धात् । कर्माभेदं तु जैमिनिः प्रयोगवचनैकत्वात् सर्वेषामुपदेशः स्यादिति । अर्थस्य व्यपवर्गित्वादेकस्यापि प्रयोगे स्याद्यथा क्रत्वन्तरेषु । पू. मी सू. VI. 3. 1–5. It appears that the अध्वरमीमांसाकुतूहलवृत्ति by Vāsudeva-dīkṣita (ms. in the Madras Govt. Oriental Mss. Library) reads कर्मभेदं for कर्माभेदं and अर्थव्यपवर्गित्वात् in sūtras 4 and 5. I am indebted to Dr V. Rāghavan for this reference In a complete ms (22 A in *Prof. Velankar's Catalogue* p 317 No. 1091) of the bhāṣya of Śabara in the Bombay Asiatic Society's Mss. Library on VI. 3. 1 the words जैमिनिर्मन्यते स्म are omitted and कर्मभेदं is read for कर्माभेदम्. The word 'upadeśa' in the 4th sūtra may be taken in the same sense in which it is used in PMS I. 1. 5 'autpattikastu... tasya jñānam-upadeśaḥ' or in the general sense of 'instruction'.

v7.c93.39

¹⁸⁹² The टुप्टीका on पू. मी. सू VI. 3. 4 appears to make this clear 'सूत्रकारो नित्ये इतिकर्तव्यतामिच्छति । ... एवं च साङ्गं यावज्जीवं न शक्नोति कश्चिदपि कर्तुमिति कृत्वा यावच्छक्त्यादित्यपनिबध्यते । शक्तस्य कामतो वैगुण्यं स्यात् ।'. 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 rite itself'

v7.c93.40

A parallel may be cited. Śaṅkarācārya makes one adhikarana of sūtras 26-33 of V. S. I. 3 (devatādhikarana) which establishes that not only men but gods are qualified to study the Vedāntaśāstra and names Bādarāyaṇa twice in the same adhikarana (in I. 3. 26 and 33) and in I. 3 33 he employs the word 'tu' because that sūtra is a reply to Jaimini's view contained in I. 3. 31-32. Similarly, the PMS puts forward the siddhānta view in VI. 3. 2 and names Jaimini in VI. 3. 4 for the same purpose.

v7.c93.41

Even Prof. Sastry admits that in four out of the five references where Jaimini is expressly named, his views are the siddhānta views. The cases of *PMS* IX. 2. 3 and *XII.* 1. 59 are somewhat remarkable. The adhikarana in both cases consists of only one sūtra, which is the siddhānta 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 adhikarana. In *PMS* VIII. 3. 7 Jaimini's view is opposed to that of Bādari (VIII. 3. 6), is the siddhānta view and there is no separate sūtra setting forth the view of the author of the PMS.

v7.c93.42

From the remarks of Śaṅkarācārya on V. S III. 4 40 (quoted in note 1890) it follows that he regarded Bādarāyaṇa as the author of the Vedāntasūtra. In V S III. 2. 38-39 the Siddhānta is stated that the rewards of actions are given by Īśvara (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, Īśvara and Dharma, gives the reward is the view of Bādarāyaṇa) Here Bādarāyaṇa is expressly mentioned as holding the same view as that in the Siddhāntasūtra III. 2. 38.

v7.c93.43

The observations of Śaṅkarācārya in introducing¹⁸⁹³ the last sūtra of the VS make it perfectly clear that he regarded Bādarāyaṇa as the author of the entire Vedāntasūtra. No satisfactory explanation is offered why it was necessary to mention Bādarāyaṇa nine times in the VS when all the 555 sūtras thereof are deemed to have been composed by Bādarāyaṇa, 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 Bādarāyaṇas.

v7.c93.44

¹⁸⁹³ नन्वेवं सति सातिशयवत्त्वादन्तवत्त्वमैश्वर्यस्य स्यात्ततश्चैषामावृत्तिः प्रसज्येतेत्यत उत्तरं भगवान् बादरायण आचार्यः पठति—अनावृत्तिः ... शब्दात्। शाङ्करभाष्य on वे. सू. IV. 4. 22.

v7.c93.45

The problem of the author of the VS is rather complicated. Bhāskara (like Śaṅkara) holds that Bādarāyaṇa is the author of VS, since he begins his commentary on VS with an obeisance to Bādarāyaṇa who sent forth (into the world) the Brahmasūtra that brings about the cessation of the bondage of birth. The Pañcapādikā of Padmapāda (a disciple of Śaṅkarācārya) performs (in the 2nd Introductory verse) an obeisance to Bādarāyaṇa.¹⁸⁹⁴ Rāmānuja, on the other hand, makes confusing statements. In the 2nd verse of his introduction to the Śrībhāṣya¹⁸⁹⁵ on VS he calls upon all good men to drink the nectar-like words of Pārāśarya, but in his bhāṣya on VS II. 2. 42 he holds that Bādarāyaṇa was the author of the Mahābhārata, wherein the Pāñcarātra-śāstra is expounded at great length (in Śāntiparva chap. 334-339 = cr. ed. 321 ff.) as also of the VS¹⁸⁹⁶. But Yāmunācārya, the preceptor of the teacher of Rāmānuja, ascribes the VS to Bādarāyaṇa. In spite of Śaṅkarācārya, Vācaspati-miśra, author of the famous Bhāmatī on¹⁸⁹⁷ Śaṅkarācārya's bhāṣya on VS, makes an obeisance to Vedavyāsa, the author of Brahmasūtra The Parāśara-mādhavīya is in two minds, in vol I part I pp. 52, 97, vol. II. part 2 pp. 3 and 275 Bādarāyaṇa is said to be the author of the VS, but in a few other places VS is spoken of as Vyāsasūtra (vol. I. part 1, pp. 56, 113). The above conflict of testimony gives rise to the important question whether Bādarāyaṇa, the supposed author of the Vedāntasūtras, is identical with Vedavyāsa or is different from him Śaṅkarācārya's bhāṣya points to the conclusion that in his opinion at least they are different.¹⁸⁹⁸ For example, on V. S. I. 3. 29 he quotes a verse of Vedavyāsa 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 aṁśa of the Supreme Self, the latter is not at all affected by the suffering of the individual soul, Śaṅkara quotes two verses as smṛti from the Mahābhārata. This makes it clear that, if the author of the VS was identical with Vedavyāsa, the author of the Mahābhārata, Śaṅkarācārya 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 has said elsewhere that' &c. The same reasoning would apply to Śaṅkarācārya's comments. If that great ācārya was of the opinion that the author of the VS was the same as that of the Mahābhārata and the Gītā he would not have cited passages from the Epic and the Gītā as Smṛtis supporting the reasoning of the VS.

v7.c93.46

¹⁸⁹⁴ नम श्रुतिशिरःपद्मषण्डमार्तण्डमूर्तये। बादरायणसंज्ञाय मुनये शमवेश्मने॥ पञ्चपादिका 2nd Intro verse (Madras Govt. series, 1958)

v7.c93.47

¹⁸⁹⁵ कथमथं ब्रुवाणो बादरायणो वेदविदम्रेसरोवे दान्तवेद्यपरब्रह्मभूतवासुदेवोपासनार्चनादिप्रतिपादनपरस्य सात्वतशास्त्रस्याप्रामाण्यं ब्रूयात्। p. 509 of श्रीभाष्य (B S. S.) on वे सू. II 2 42.

v7.c93.48

¹⁸⁹⁶ यद्यपि भगवता बादरायणेन इदमर्थान्येव सूत्राणि प्रणीतानि विवृतानि च तानि परिमितगम्भीरभाषिणा भाष्यकृता विस्तृतानि च तानि गम्भीरन्यायसागरभाषिणा श्रीवत्साङ्कमिश्रेणापि। सिद्धित्रय (Chow. S S.) pp 5-6.

v7.c93.49

¹⁸⁹⁷ ब्रह्मसूत्रकृते तस्मै वेदव्यासाय वेधसे। ज्ञानशक्त्यवताराय नमो भगवतो हरेः॥ भामती, 5th Intro. verse

v7.c93.50

¹⁸⁹⁸ अत एव च नित्यत्वम्। वे सू I. 3. 29; भाष्य 'वेदव्यासश्चैवमेव स्मरति। 'युगान्तेन्तर्हितान्वेदान्सेतिहासान्महर्षयः। लेभिरे तपसा पूर्वमनुज्ञाताः स्वयम्भुवा॥' इति This verse is शान्तिपर्व 210 19 (cr. ed. 203. 17), स्मरन्ति च। वे. सू II 3. 47, भाष्य "स्मरन्ति च व्यासादयो यथा जैवेन दुः खेन न परमात्मा दुःखायत इति। 'तत्र यः परमात्मा हि स नित्यो निर्गुण स्मृत । न लिप्यते फलैश्चापि पद्मपत्रमिवाम्भसा॥ कर्मात्मा त्वपरो योसो मोक्ष-बन्धे स युज्यते। स सप्तदशकेनापि राशिना युज्यते पुनः॥' इति". These two are शान्तिपर्व 352. 14–16 (cr. ed. 339. 14–15).

v7.c93.51

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 himself by name in five places only. The usual explanation offered by some commentators when Pāṇini names¹⁸⁹⁹ 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 Bādarāyaṇa in I. 1. 5 and XI. 1. 65 Śabara¹⁹⁰⁰ 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 Jaimini five times only, there was a predecessor and namesake of his called Jaimini who had expressed his views in a different work.

v7.c93.52

¹⁸⁹⁹ On तृषि-मृषिकृशेः काश्यपस्य (पा. I 2. 25) the महाभाष्य says 'काश्यपग्रहणं किमर्थम् । काश्यपग्रहणं पूजार्थम्'।.

v7.c93.53

¹⁹⁰⁰ बादरायणग्रहणं बादरायणस्येदं मतं कीर्त्यते बादरायणं कीर्तयितुं नात्मीयं मतं पर्युदसितुम्। शबर on पू मी सू I. 5 p. 25, बादरायणग्रहणं कीर्त्यर्थं नैकीयमतार्थम्। शबर on पू. मी सू. XI. 1. 65.

v7.c93.54

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, I 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, I. 2. 31, I. 4. 18, IV. 3. 12, IV. 4. 5, IV. 4. 11) for which no corresponding *adhikaraṇa* or sūtra in the PMS can be pointed out, while sūtras III. 2. 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.

v7.c93.55

There are in VS nine sūtras in which Bādarāyaṇa is named viz. in VS I 3. 26 and 33 (Bādarāyaṇa being twice named in the same *adhikaraṇa* 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 ascribed to Bādarāyaṇa 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 Bādarāyaṇa's are the views of the author of the VS who employs the third person for himself as ancient authors do (I. A. vol. 50 at p. 169). This does not afford a satisfactory explanation of the question why it was necessary to invoke Bādarāyaṇa's name in nine cases only for buttressing up the position of the author of the VS (that has 555 sūtras). If the author of the VS and Bādarāyaṇa named nine times are identical, the name of Bādarāyaṇa should ordinarily appear towards the end of the *adhikaraṇa* and not in the middle. Two examples may be cited here to illustrate how VS deals with references to Bādarāyaṇa. In III. 2 38-41 (which is one *adhikaraṇa*) the *siddhānta* view is first stated with reasons in III. 2. 38-39, then Jaimini's view is cited (III. 4. 40) and then Bādarāyaṇa is mentioned as agreeing with the view first put forth 'pūrvam tu Bādarāyaṇo hetuvyapadeśāt), the difference being that the *siddhānta* is based upon 'upapatti' while Bādarāyaṇa relies upon 'hetuvyapadeśa' (in *śruti* and *smṛti*). This shows that different reasons were assigned by the author of VS and by Bādarāyaṇa for the same proposition. VS. III. 4. 18-20 form one *adhikaraṇa* about *sannyāsa*. Jaimini starts the pūrvapakṣa that the Chān Up. (II. 23. 1 'trayo dharmaskandhāḥ') only makes a passing reference to the āśramas, there is no vidhi (injunction) in that text and there is no exposition also. Then Bādarāyaṇa's view is cited 'anustheyam Bādarāyaṇaḥ sāmyaśruteḥ' 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 VS that there is a vidhi of *sannyāsa* in that text. If Bādarāyaṇa and the author of VS be held identical, why was it necessary to add the sūtra 'vidhirvā dhāraṇavat' (VS. III. 4. 20) after stating Bādarāyaṇa's view? It would be also noticed that the reasons given in the two sūtras 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 Bādarāyaṇa'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 Bādarāyaṇa 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 reasons of his own.

v7.c93.56

In Pāṇini's time there were mendicant ascetics (bhikṣus) who studied the 'Bhikṣusūtra of Pārāśarya' or 'the Bhikṣusūtra of Karmanda' and were designated 'Pārāśariṇaḥ' and 'Karmandinah'.¹⁹⁰¹ A *bhiksu* represents the order of *Sannyāsa*. Therefore, a Bhiksusūtra 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 Br. Up. (III. 5. 1 and IV. 4. 22) emphasizes that those who realize *brahma* give up all desires and practise begging. The Gautama-dharmasūtra¹⁹⁰² says the same thing. No trace is found of the Bhiksusūtra of Karmanda. But it is possible to say that the Bhiksusūtra propounded by Pārāśarya must have been somewhat like the extant Brahmasūtra or one of its predecessors. This would be the earliest reference to a sūtra by Pārāśarya on the sannyāsāśrama. The date of Pāṇini is not beyond dispute. But no modern scholar would place him after 300 B. C. The present writer would place him as early as at least 500 or 600 B. C. The result would be that the Bhiksusūtra of Pārāśarya named by Pāṇini would have to be placed at some time between 400 B. C. to 700 B. C. Further light is shed by Vārtika¹⁹⁰³ (1) on Pāṇini IV. 1. 97, from which it follows that Vyāsa's '*apatya*' (son) was called Vaiyāsaki, that is Śuka (according to the Mahābhāṣya). Bādarāyaṇa is formed from Badara which is a word in the Naḍādi-gaṇa (consisting of about 76 words), according to Pāṇini IV. 1. 99 (*Naḍādibhyaḥ phak*), Bādari being the son of Badara, Bādarāyaṇa being the grandson (or a remoter male descendant) of Badara. At some period Vyāsa and Bādarāyaṇa came to be confounded and Śuka, who was the son of Vyāsa according to the Vārtika and the Mahābhāṣya, came to be called Bādarāyaṇi (son of Bādarāyaṇa) as shown by the Bhāgavatapurāṇa (XII. 5. 8 where Śuka is said to be 'Bhagavān Bādarāyaṇiḥ'). It appears that from the 9th century A. D. Bādarāyaṇa came to be confounded with Vyāsa Pārāśarya.

v7.c93.57

¹⁹⁰¹ पाराशर्यशिलालिभ्यां भिक्षुनटसूत्रयोः । कर्मन्दकृशाश्वादिनिः। पा IV 3, 110-111, पाराशर्येण प्रोक्तं भिक्षुसूत्रमधीयते पाराशरिणो भिक्षवः, कर्मन्देन प्रोक्तं भिक्षुसूत्रमधीयते कर्मन्दिनो भिक्षवः। सि कौ It is possible that Pāṇini refers to a sūtra work on ancient Sāṅkhya by Pañcaśikha. This will be briefly discussed in another chapter below It will be shown later from the Mahābhārata that Pañcaśikha was called bhiksu and Pārāśarya (vide note 2186 below).

v7.c93.58

¹⁹⁰² ब्रह्मचारी गृहस्थो भिक्षुर्वैखानस । . अनिश्चयो भिक्षुः। ... भिक्षार्थी ग्राममियात्। गौतमधर्मसूत्र III. 2. 10-13.

v7.c93.59

¹⁹⁰³ सुधातृष्कङ् च। पा. IV 1. 97; सुधातृव्यासयो. वार्तिक ।; सौधातकिः । वैयासकि शुक.। महाभाष्य.

v7.c93.60

A brief examination of the citation of the views of Bādarāyana and Jaimini in the PMS and the Brahmasūtra¹⁹⁰⁴ is necessary. Bādarāyana is named only five times by the P. M. sūtra as said above. (1) In P. M. S. I. 1. 5 the author claims that he and Bādarāyana are agreed on the eternity and infallibility of the Veda; (2) In P. M. S. V. 2. 17-20, there is a discussion on Naksatresti. In the model sacrifice there are certain homas called Nāristha; the question is whether in the modifications of the model wherein certain subordinate homas colled upahomas are prescribed, the Nāristha homas precede or follow the Upahomas. The *siddhānta* view is that Nāristhahomas precede, Ātreya being of the opposite view and Bādarāyana supporting the *siddhānta*. (3) In P. M. S. 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 *adhikarana* in which the question is whether the texts prescribing Āgneya and Aindrāgna purodāśas in Darśapūrnamāsa for a sacrificer who has not performed soma sacrifice constitute a *vidhi* (of the two) or only an *anuvāda*, Bādarāyana's view in PMS. X. 8. 44 being that its is a *vidhi* and the *siddhānta* 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 Darśapūrnamāsa or are to be performed only once.

v7.c93.61

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.

v7.c93.62

With regard to these five cases where Bādarāyana is cited in the P. M. S. three points emerge, viz the author of the P. M. S. agrees with Bādarāyana's view in all except in X. 8 44 (where the two differ), that the view attributed to Bādarāyana in P. M. S. I. 1. 5 has correspondence with the views of the V. S. (I. 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 Pūrvamīmāmsā matters before him and that, if Bādarāyana be the author of the extant V. S., the latter had composed a work on Pūrvamīmāmsā matters also or that there was another Bādarāyana who wrote only on Pūrvamīmāṁsā. 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.

First 66 of 836 passages. Read on

Linked texts (75)