History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.34.1

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).