History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.20

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.’