History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.34
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.34
- Language
- English
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